The Subtle Genius of Al Gore

Once a lone voice crying in the wilderness, Reverend Al now has his critics preaching his message for him.

Surely you’ve noticed what I am talking about? It used to be that conservatives doubted the reality of global warming. Then they doubted whether it is man-made. Then they doubted whether we can do anything about it. Finally, their fallback position is – Al Gore is a hypocrite!

Right-wing bloggers are scurrying around trying to figure out how big Gore’s house is, how many plane trips he takes, the carbon footprints of his concerts, etc. Google “Gore hypocrite” and “Gore carbon footprint”, and you can get quite a lesson in energy conservation. When they don’t talk about Gore being a hypocrite, they accuse him of exaggerating. Al Gore says my beach house will be under 50 feet of water a few decades from now. Realistically, it will be under only 10 feet of water! Okay, 10 feet then. Nothing to get excited about…

Gore is like a wily Sunday school teacher who has his students noticing all of his violations of the Ten Commandments. I just heard Pastor Bob saying that he wishes he had a Lexus like Mr. Peterson. That violates the 10th Commandment! Oh yeah, well I just heard him saying that his father was a no-good sinner... I don't know if anyone has ever tried this, but it would probably work. People take a real jest in finding cheaters.

I almost feel guilty about writing this. Have I given away the game? Will Al Gore critics keep it up, now that I’ve pointed out that they are really his pawns? Probably. The urge is pick on the class know-it-all is too hard to resist.

Global warming is a hoax, climate change is not man-made, we can’t do anything about it and AlGore IS a hypocrite-and a liar.
The Goracle has never been “a lone voice crying in the wilderness” (more proof that the Global Warming Cult is a religion-the use of Biblical imagery by its adherents). He’s always been the huckster he is now. He just gets more and more buffoonish.

Your comments make me sick. Some Republicans simply refuse to acknowledge global warming, that the war isn’t going well, etc. Some people never learn. Most Americans are appalled. What’s your position on evolution? Wait, don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.

The hypocrite card. I guess no one can have an opinion on this subject if they drive a car now? My favorite was a reporter reminding Leonardo DiCaprio that he is an environmentalist and asking how he travelled to a French movie premier. His reply “I drove across the Atlantic”.

Oh and Max before you jump to conclusions I’ve been registered D for about 18 years now. I don’t vote party lines because that’s something only stupid people do, but in general I find myself aligning with the Ds much more than the Rs. Too bad Ds don’t understand the value in publicly carried firearms and the death penalty for murderers, but that’s not what this is about. It’s about how Al Gore is alleged to be somehow great because he made a movie that pushes bad science into popular culture.

Interesting how people who claim global warming is a hoax never offer any objective, scientific evidence. There’s a lot of talk about bad science, but no evidence it’s bad science. These arguments remind me of all those “studies” funded by they tobacco companies so they could claim “all the data’s not in yet” or “the science isn’t clear”.

Max,
As I’ve atated before, I’m not a Republican. They disgust me as much as the Democrats do.
If the science supported the AGW hypothesis I would be a proponent. However, there is none that supports the belief that man is causing a catastrophic heating of the atmosphere that will devastate civilization if it’s not stopped. Indeed, everything I’ve found contradicts that belief.

All of you are wrong … Al Gore has shown me the light. Through his backing of concerts worldwide that generated not only a lot money, but also a lot of trash, big energy bills, and tons of additional carbon into our atmosphere, I realized that Al Gore is our modern day savior. We must all remember that every single word in “An Inconvenient Truth” was scripture to our new religious movement and whenever Honest Al talks, the skies part and rays of beautiful sunlight descend and bounce off of his slicked back hair, but still enhance his tan. Honest Al invented the Internet, which allows us to commune as one in his eternal benevolence. One of his many operations allows us to send him money for “carbon credits,” which, in turn, forgives us our sins of living in air-conditioned homes and driving around in our cars; while Honest Al does all that he can to save the Earth upon which we all live. Yes, we should all stop going to church and start worshipping at the winged-tipped feet of our new Messiah, Honest Al Gore.

You have it entirely backwards. I am very thankful that Gore made such far reaching exaggerated statements. He started this debate up hard.
Now we are at a point where enough people have heard that “not all scientist are on the same page with Gore!” The fact he had to exaggerate means the facts he had in his hand were not enough to prove his point.

Again I would like to predict that “global warming” when all the facts are straight will be “global breathing” and that the term “global warming” goes by the way of “politically correct” as “global cooling” did within my lifetime. We will let history decide. I guess we will just have to wait.

You see when Gore went on Larry King and told us that finally the entire scientific world was on the same page as him, he lied! It did not take a day for thousands of scientist to get upset over that statement. You can go through many links in past posts to prove this point.

I think that this is a pretty ridiculous conversation. global warming or not—-there is no disagreement that the pollution in the air and water and our incredible disregard for the earth and the health of any of its inhabitants (animal or plant life) in pursuit of money and bigger and more things, has left us with more asthma, more allergies, more illness, more diseased fish and animal life, less clean air to breathe, more melanoma at earlier ages, and on and on and on. EVEN if you don’t believe that melting polar icecaps are a problem or rising sea levels might inconvenience you in the future—-why are you distracting from the conversation of clean air, clean water and better health to our planet and ourselves and making companies accountable to the rest of the world’s population? Even in kindergarden we were taught to clean up our own messes and that it was wrong to hurt someone else or to leave a mess for others to clean up. what difference does it make what you call it or what your reason is—-we have made a mess of the planet in terms of its health and well-being and we are all paying the price for it in many ways. it is time for all of us on the planet, especially those who made the biggest messes, to clean it up and live like good members of the community, not like selfish, greedy, totally self-obsorbed buffoons!

What?!!! Global warming a hoax?? How can this be? If global warming wasn’t real, why would environmental movements and Honest Al Gore say that it is? Why would they accept money if what they are saying isn’t the God-holy Truth? Are you trying to tell me to think for myself and take the time to research the matter to find out about whether there has been any significant climate change in the past 100 years? To learn that the Earth is not static but dynamic and as such, has experienced global warming AND cooling infinite times during it 4-billion-year history? To ascertain what exactly the impact of carbon dioxide is, considering it makes up about .03 percent of the atmosphere? Are you trying to tell me that there could be a lot of other plausible explanations for global warming, such as sun spot activity, the Earth’s rotation, etc.? That just can’t be!!! Honest Al told us that global warming is OUR FAULT! I feel so guilty … what right do I have to stay alive considering how much pollution I am currently generating. I would kill myself, only cremation contributes to global warming and as I decomposed, I would emit more carbon dioxide. I guess my only answer is to reduce the size of my wallet (and carbon footprint) by sending all of my money to Honest Al.

Hmmm … just thinking. Honest Al can say anything and use any kind of illustrations he wants; provided he hedges what he says in the context that the results of global warming won’t really hit until about 2040. By then it won’t any difference whether he was right or not — Honest Al would be long dead or so old that he wouldn’t be able to remember what he said in the past anyway. In the meantime, Honest Al continues to develop a new religious following of naive, easily duped individuals who will buy anything that this guy is selling. Honest Al is livin’ large — and not just his stomach and head! He gets carte blanche to violate every cardinal sin he pontificates against, while his bankroll grows expotentially larger than the amount of C02 being generated by China. By the way, Julye, only a fool would piss in the pot he has to drink from, so to pollute the world remains the wrong thing to do. But keep in mind that if you check EPA records you will find that overall, the air is cleaner, the water cleaner, there is less trash on the roadways, and cars and heating & cooling are more energy efficient than in the days before “global warming” ever started. If Al Gore and environmental groups were to admit these “Inconvenient Truths,” the amount of money they would pull in would drop dramatically, much like the amount of hot air produced if only Honest Al would keep his mouth shut.

Man, this thread has gotten shrill. The problem with the solar forcing theory, which seems be to uncritically accepted by those seeking any rhetorical recourse that serves their predetermined notions, is that it doesn’t account for all the observed data. If you read the IPCC report, you will see that the world’s scientists incorporated solar forcing as well as a host of other factors.

There is some legitimate dispute on the extent of solar forcing — the best estimates I’ve read claim it may account for 10-30 percent of the observed data. But climate studies are incredibly complex. After accounting for gadzillion factors, it appears that man-caused C02 is a very large factor. What do you want? When we are dealing with incredibly complex systems, we have to resort to probability, and the probability that man-made C02 is behind much of our global warming is very high — 92+ plus.

Read the science. That means of course that you can’t just cherry pick from the internet views that support your own. For the record, I hope that the scientists are wrong, that we’re not going to face huge disruptions. But I don’t allow my hopes to control my reasoning.

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

This is from the IPCC! It is beyond reproach right? It is the holy scriptures. How can this be?

You can take it how ever you want. Even many on the left will tell you that he way over exaggerated his claims. Look at many past blogs. In any debate, on any subject, when you have to over-exaggerate or hype to prove your point, it is a pretty good sign that you may not have enough evidence to prove your point.

It must not be true! Woody has told us that there are no “verifiably, objectively false statements about global warming”

So all those scientist who adamantly disagree with “BIG AL” must be figments of our imagination. They don’t exist. Wonder where all those scientist went who, when I was in Elementary school, were telling us we were about to enter he next ICE AGE?

They must all be figments of our imagination. We had better have ourselves committed to the first local institution we can find.

At this point I don’t think it really matters whether global warming is man made or not. The problem is it is happening or at least something is happening to change our climate. Instead of arguing over whether it our fault or not we should be discussing what are we going to do to survive the loss of land mass and the change in agricultural production areas. Part of that discussion should probably include can we slow it down and how, as well.

So does anyone have a problem with Mr Gore pushing this global warming thing. Isn’t this simply brilliant marketing for his company? The guy gets the whole world in a frenzy just so he can make more money. Al Gore is a genius.

Why during the years of 92-2000 did not “BIG AL” use his bully pulpit to discuss this topic that is so near and dear to his heart every day? Could it be that we had not yet solved “global cooling” or was it that “he” solved it so well that we only started catastrophically warming ourselves recently? And the whole time we have been getting cleaner and cleaner air. Just how does that work?

Even assuming your quote is true, it’s irrelevant. Eight years means nothing; the data show frequent rises, dips, and periods of status quo. Look, when people point to a few years of increased hurricane activity as “proof” of something, they are being ridiculous. What matters is trends over longer periods of time. If you are serious about understanding the science, then spend some time on it. Looking for rhetorical points on the internet does not count as study.

The single best thing we should do now is get a carbon tax, which that diehard liberal Jack has been pushing for awhile.

I’m still hoping Al Gore can be convinced to run for president. It’s being floated that he could easily beat Hillary if he did, so I see no reason why he shouldn’t think about going for it.
Judging by the responses (repetitive trolling) in this thread, the prospect of a Al Gore presidency is likely to make a lot of global warming deniers and assorted dim bulbs apoplectic. No doubt that would be entertaining, too! :^)

You guys are being silly. Perhaps you know that. Wild charges of hoaxes, crazy speculation that Gore is brilliant enough to manipulate world opinion so that he can profit, nutty conspiracy theories about world socialism, nonsequitor quotes about polls of voter opinion, etc., etc. — argue with the science if you want, but account for the analysis that has already dealt with the objections being raised. You guys read something on the internet, think it sounds plausible, and then regurgitate it here as if no one ever thought of it before. That shows to me you are much less interested in discussing validity than in scoring rhetorical points by any possible means.

Look, it it possible that man-caused C02 is not a dominant factor in climate change. The IPCC says that — all factors considered, there is an 8 percent chance or less that the massive dumping off C02 by man in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has had little effect. You’ve got slightly more chance of hitting a gutshot straight in hold ‘em. It’s possible but it’s not the way to bet.

Well, it’s nice to see the bully pack out in full armament….and Woody, it’s also nice of you to give them something to vent about. Gives us something amusing to read, too. Doesn’t take a whole lot to get some guys skivvies in a wad real quick!!
LilSue and judye….you’re both right on with your comments, and you can see that the opposing factor is far too busy to pay attention to your quiet, but appropriate comments.
With any luck, a lot of us won’t be around to see the full impact of what this “HOAX” will do to our world, but I really do think we’re terribly self-centered and narrow-minded to think that we’re not leaving generations following us in a mess!!! Sorry kids… :(

Sandra, while the Earth may be experiencing global warming to some extent, no one — not Honest Al Gore, not the Sierra Club, not the League of Concerned Scientists — can honestly or accurately predict the climate in 100 years, 50 years, 10 years, or even next year. The Earth is not static, nor is its climate. Changes can occur rapidly or extremely slowly. No one here is saying “Go forth and pollute;” but rather than derail most of the world’s economies, increase global poverty (which would be far more catastrophic to more people), while allowing some countries such as China, Russia, and India to go on pumping crap into the atmosphere without any consequences — all based on the hunches and perceptions of those whose livelihoods and futures rest soundly in Junk Science — will leave the world in a far worse mess. As for the possible “devastation” to the Earth, keep in mind that apocalyptic scenarios for the future are nothing new and date back to centuries. Apocalyptic propheses are the basis of most religions, so Gore, like a lot of hucksters of the past, is only trying to capitalize on the Global Warming Apocalypse. Something else to think about — Remember Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb?” We should all be living like those in Soylent Green by now, if he was correct. Better still: how about Global Cooling? For those of you too young to remember, that was another apocalyptic environmental scenario, which matches Honest Al’s predictions, only in the opposite. This came out in the mid 1970s and to read about it, click on this link:http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

You see when Gore went on Larry King and told us that finally the entire scientific world was on the same page as him, he lied!

This is the second time I have seen a link to this article, and the same wrong conclusion was drawn from it. If you read the article, it says the majority of the public interviewed did not believe in Global Warming. It does not say that the scientists doubt global warming. So much for comprehension as a reading skill.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earthâ€(tm)s recent warming occurred before 1940

This one is humorous, Avery is an Economist and Singer receives grant money from oil and tobacco companies. Singer also wrote that he disagreed with the ill effects attributed to second hand cigarette smoke. Gee, you wonder if there is a conflict of interest that is affecting his analysis.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher … I realize the story told us is far more complicated than the story told us …

Dr. Shariv an Astrophysicist has some valid points. But his qualifications as a climatogists is lacking. He beliefs that celestial factors contributing to global warming are more important than the factors created here on earth. He however, does not ever say that CO2 does not contribute to global warming. He only disagrees to what extent it contributes to global warming. You have to find a read his discourse on this, and of course the majority of qualified scientists disagree with him.

This line of reasoning always amuses me. For some some reason, we should ignore the logical scientific conclusion based on the overwhelming mass of currently-available evidence because at one point a few scientists hypothesized something that turned out to be untrue.

Global Cooling was considered a fairly crackpot idea at the time. That it was found to be false doesn’t give any reason to doubt the serious, conclusive science behind a completely different supported theory 30 years later.

I do not even understand what side Gerrold is on after reading his posts, but I think I agree with him. There are certainly many many factors involved which we do not understand clearly, such as coronal mass ejections.

In the micro-environment, it is pretty clear that having millions of machines that have to make fire and heat and run around on pavement that heats up, is not helpful.

It is pretty clear that global warming is occurring, denying it does not make any sense, whatever the contributing causes.

Ironically, the tenth commandment of the 613 commandments is: Not to test the prophet unduly.

There are just as many, if not more scientists that say global warming is not true.

Andy, your statement is in direct contradiction of the facts.

Perhaps within the subset of scientists you want to listen to you are correct. However, the reality is that the incredibly strong consensus of the scientific community is that Global Warming is a real issue, and that human influence is a/the primary cause.

Given the dire conditions many across the world live in, I would think population size is something to be concerned about. Most of the population growth is in underdeveloped countries. If you want to claim that it is possible for the earth to support our population growth, I would agree. But given what we see now, more people means more suffering.

At any rate, climate change isn’t about the end of the world — what serious person says that? But it is about largescale disruption, starvation, droughts, flooding, etc., etc. Will man survive? Of course. In fact, some regions will be better off. What we’re talking about now is trying to mitigate the most disruptive of the changes that are coming.

As far as labeling climatology “junk science,” I don’t know what to say about that. It bears little resemblence to Creationism, for example, which actively denies the validity of the available evidence. Would you say that climatology is a junk science if its conclusions were otherwise?

I think you make a couple of mistakes. First, there is an assumption that ‘these things will happen’, but the fact is that is all a guess. If the trends continue and we are sure about the reasons, then yes. But I don’t think that we are sure that the trends will continue or what exactly are the causes. That is what leads into the second mistake. Climatology is not junk science. However, certain aspects that are labelled as such may be considered so, including putting weight into computer models that we can’t retrograde to the past and get accurate results or not knowing all of the variables and expecting that the predictions will hold up. In that respect some could say that aspect of climatology is akin to divination, but I’m not sure I agree completely with that. The models and predictions are relevant and necessary, but they are not necessarily what is going to happen beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Unfortunately, I think Gore is sincere when he says he’s not interested in running again. That’s a shame because he’s clearly the best person for the job. Only the most rabid partisan can deny that this country would have been much better off if thoughtfulness had prevailed in 2000. But even today a full 28 or 29 percent of the country supports the current occupant of the White House.

Everyone here could write a paper on global warming. Is global warming caused by man or is it a natural cycle. Both would be backed by facts and both would look to be correct, but only one would be. So who would be right?

I’m sure they are. Heck, they might even have experience in a relevant field. However, they are the tiny minority whose objections are based on evidence that other scientists have considered and have answers for.

No, Andy. The reason not to listen to him is not that we don’t like his conclusion. The reason not to listen to him is that his methods are crap.

He makes up numbers (100! 99!), puts a bit of math on them, and then claims that those invented numbers are a result by which we can analyze the relevant science. I don’t know how anyone could claim with a straight face that we should accept or reject anything based on such made up and irrelevant number games.

Not at all. I’ll shock you here. I think that all the climate scientists are wrong.

Surprised?

I mean that there are still unknown parts of the system, there are still calculations untaken, there are still ideas not yet created. Because of all this, it’s not possible for anyone to be 100% correct.

However, that’s not limited to the issue of Global Warming; it’s true of all science. We don’t know the weight of the Sun down to the ounce, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t understand why the earth revolves around it. We don’t know the exact processes by which the heat of the Sun is created, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know how seasons work.

I’m not saying that all variable have been taken into account. What I will say, though, is that a lot of people smarter than you or I have thought a lot about this, and they have created models that both explain and predict amazingly well. They realize that they don’t know everything, and that doubt is taken into consideration when trying to figure out what’s going on.

It’s not blind faith to see that the scientific method works well, and that it is at work in the discipline under discussion.

I read your link. Here are some things to consider. If your source’s analogy to a game of chance is correct, then we shouldn’t be able to predict the weather tomorrow with any degree of certainty. Yet we can do a fairly good job of it. We can’t be absolutely certain, but when the weatherman says there is a 90 percent chance of rain tomorrow, it’s foolish to plan for a picnic.

By reducing the issue the way your source does, he essentially assigns equal possibilities to a host of unpredicted outcomes. By his reasoning we could have a massive 20 degree drop in global temperature next year. Is it possible? One can create a scenario I assume for that. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

When we launch a probe to, say, Jupiter, we are able to succeed most often despite the great many variables — gravitational fluctuations, solar wind, space debris, etc., etc. Some probes are capable of making minor course corrections, but if it weren’t possible to crunch most of the variables into an essentially correct trajectory from the beginning, probes to Jupiter would be impossible. So much for complexity alone eliminating the possibility of fairly accurate computation.

Here’s another example. I play a lot of hold ‘em. It’s a very complex game. You have to deal with many different types of invidual psychologies; you have to deal with probability with the cards. A certain play against one person may be smart; the same play against a different person may be dumb. The variables are far more than appear at first glance. Yet because I study the game, I am able to determine fairly accurately my rate of return over a long period of time. Complexity does not mean accurate prediction is impossible.

Look, this isn’t a matter of believing in climate change or not. I don’t “believe” in it. I don’t “believe” in evolution, either. I think the best evidence now say both are highly likely. I don’t buy the whole “hoax” business; in general I’m highly suspicious of elaborate conspiracies. I don’t think our government was behind 9/11, either.

Unfortunately, I think Gore is sincere when he says he’s not interested in running again.”

Well, to quote the title of Studs Terkel’s last book: ‘Hope Dies Last.’ Personally, I’m not yet convinced, because if that was absolutely true, then why hasn’t he just come out and said “Sorry, NO. It’s never going to happen.” Since he hasn’t done that, I haven’t given up my hope.

“That’s a shame because he’s clearly the best person for the job.”

Indeed, and who better to guide America’s move toward energy independence? Why on Earth resist the chance to be in charge of such an important goal?

“Only the most rabid partisan can deny that this country would have been much better off if thoughtfulness had prevailed in 2000.”

Only the most rabid partisan can deny that this country would have been much better off if thoughtfulness had prevailed in 2000.”

You mean the thoughtfullness that he used as VP during the administration that exacerbated the issue during the 90s to the point we saw in 2001? The one who did nothing of consequence to the group that attacked the WTC in 93, having 7 whole years to do something and failing miserably?

I’m sorry, but the notion that Gore would have been good for anything as president is laughable. Would he have been better than Bush? Probably not. Worse? Probably not. Different? Most definately. Gore would have gotten something right where Bush failed but would have screwed up in his own unique incompetent way.

I almost feel guilty about writing this. Have I given away the game? Will Al Gore critics keep it up, now that I’ve pointed out that they are really his pawns? Probably. The urge is pick on the class know-it-all is too hard to resist.
Posted by Woody Mena at July 9, 2007 08:00 AM

Woody…your attempt at some kind of reverse psychology just isn’t working with us conservative “subtle geniuses”. A.G. is just a money grubbing, hate monger who has conjured up a false crisis to enrich himself.

Gang, let’s keep it simple…a big Hummer is guzzling huge amounts of a limited resource that spews noxious fumes as well as co2…what part of this car/truck is good for this planet…the waste of fuel? The extra pollution? The obnoxious size of this ridiculous vehicle on our already crowded roads? The hazard if it strikes a normal vehicle? The extra wasted natural minerals it took to build this behemoth? Aside from stroking the ego of the owner, this vehicle has no credibility, nor others like it. And saying “it’s safe” at the cost of being a hazard to others doesn’t cut it. The same goes for wasteful thinking in our government, businesses and other personal acquisitions. We don’t need to waste just because at this point in time we can afford to. The dumps are growing larger and our resources are growing smaller…global warming is academic, at this point…we are hurting our future as a species and those around us, if we don’t curb our egos and excesses.

The Hummer is a stupid vehicle to have and only sells to those who need to … um … compensate for something.

Buying one is stupid and buying cars that get better gas mileage and better emissions just makes sense without making it into a religion about saving the planet.

We don’t need to believe or accept the Al Gore view of the climate to see that being energy independant and environmentally conservative makes the most sense for us as individuals AND as a country. By steeping that into the religion that is called ‘Global Warming’ (all the while using a phrase that makes little sense for what is being argued) just makes people with common sense rankle.

People should be trying to get us to be smart and sensible people without having to force their religion on us. Of Course, if we could do that though, there would probably be no Christianity…

As you can see from the slide, it is true that temperatures have been stable since 1998. However, 1998 was the hottest year since 1850 (at least!) In fact, some of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. So the fact that the temperature has been “stable” since 1998 is not good news at all! It is really quite alarming, because it suggests the seemingly extreme heat of 1998 may actually be normal now.

It’s amazing how much emotion is wrapped up in this subject. If you like Al Gore, what he says is right. If you don’t like Al Gore, what he says is wrong.

Well, it is not a question of what Gore says. It is a question of what may happen in the future. Scientists at NASA and scientists working on the UN report (otherwise known as IPCC report) say that probably we will be faced with increased temperatures this century that will cause havoc.

Well, since I’m working on a book on this subject, I have been reading what skeptics say.

Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr. are scientists that wrote a book called “Satanic Gases,” a title that tells you immediately they are skeptics. After spending most of the book discussing errors, approximations, uncertainties, misunderstandings and bad modeling, they say:

“…the best guess range of sea level rise during the next [21st] century would be about 5 – 11 inches.”

Since they and other scientists are unsure of the future, how come they believe this? And what makes them so sure that the sea level rise will not be 12 inches or even more?

Yes, scientists do not know. Nobody knows the future. However, we have very good reason to believe that CO2 will cause trouble in the future. Prudence says we must do something.

So sometime between 1850 and 2007 there was a “hottest year on record”-1998 Surprise me!

Guess what tho! There was also a coldest year on record during that time period too.

Yosemite used to be covered in glaciers also. What caused that cooling. Yosemite is way hotter now in 2007 than when those glaciers were there. That proves that global warming is going to be catastrophic and is real!

First, I did, and that link still does not conflict with “global cooling”

2nd Are you trying to tell me that the earth all of a sudden got up to 102 degrees and never came back down? My body temp never went above 102 before I was 32 when I had a 105 for a couple of hours. Oh my my body has in my thirties been inflicted with global warming.

So then when most of North America was covered in Ice we were really sick? Or was the earth sick when it got warm when all that Ice melted. And it STAYED THAT WAY! Was it sick when in the 70’s we were dealing with “global warming”

Woody Mena- I think all these spinmeisters will
die from eating or drinking toxins long before
the world freezes or burns up, or maybe the
smog may get them, I would prefer meister Dust
be used on them. (”)smile!

On the anti-climate change side are those who in fact, bring out the critique of the probability models for assessing climate change.

On the pro-climate change side are those who bring out the consensus of a majority of scientists who upon viewing the data from many probability and statistic models and hypotheses, agree that climate change is taking place, and climate change means beneficial results for some, and disastrous consequences for others.

This is very much like the inverse argument between pro and anti Las Vegas betters. The anti-better side cites the data which demonstrates using probability and statistical modeling that over time, any player of Las Vegas house games will lose. The pro-better cites anecdotal stories from this friend, that newspaper, and that other magazine which demonstrate that a person can bet in Las Vegas and come away a very big winner.

Because this is an inverse analogy, the pro-betters represent the critics of global climate change. And the anti-betters represent the those who say we should act to ameliorate the effects of global climate change whether they be warming, cooling, or both, one after the other.

Jack
A voice in the wilderness. Yes a carbon tax. Your suggestion of spending the tax to pay off the SS bonds is brilliant.Getting the left to go along with it will be easy compared with getting the right to even aknowelege a problem. This thread is ample proof of that.Good luck.

For the shrill flatearthers. Too late. 2 billion people are motivated. That is the tipping point. From now on you can sit in the corner and mutter to yourselves.Where was the moon landing staged anyway?

Some feel that we are presently warming up and it will not stop because we have polluted too much.

Others believe that we are going through a naturally caused warming trend and as it always has it will reverse and go the other way. Like a breath.

My facts that back that up. So far, until now, even your scientist believe that in the past over time it has warmed and cooled.

What we don’t have is evidence that this current warming trend is totally man made or is not going to stop before it gets catastrophic. But didn’t we link that Mars is currently losing its polar Ice Caps? Those polluting Martians. Bad Martians.

BillS, beware the politicization of the carbon tax. It is already being designed by the wealthy special interests to become a bank in which credits and deposits may be made, similar to the Savings and Loan system, in which bankruptcy can be built into its future with the taxpayer becoming the bailout.

In theory, the carbon tax makes sense. In practice, with our wealthy corporate special interests at the legislative drafting table, theory and practice may well become a chasm for a bridge too far.

The carbon tax should be simple and elegant. There should be no offsets, no adjustments and no exceptions. It should be on carbon intensive energy sources and production and should be simply on the carbon produced. It would drive up the price of coal, more than oil and oil more than gas. There would not be many surprises. Cement production is one. Some alternatives would be tax free. That is a defacto subsidy. We need no others. Keep it simple and it is much harder to manipulate or cheat.

Jack, that is the theory, already rejected in Committee hearings by industry advocates and representatives a great many months ago. The carbon tax exchange market is already on the drawing boards, and the wealthiest players, like those of Wall Street, will reshape the theory to meet their practical and profitable needs.

The form is net caps, in which carbon credits and debits are traded to highest and lowest bidders, exempting those with competitive advantage and large bank accounts from curtailing their output. In theory, this should not affect the net cap reductions, BUT, in theory, our own economic system should not be carrying the personal, trade, and national debt obligation loads it is now carrying.

Compromise will be the political word used to build this bridge too long to sustain its own weight across a chasm too wide between theory and the profitable political expediency of our current wealthy special interest campaign financing system for political office.

I’ve heard it all now: 9/11 means we must invade Iraq, the war is going swell, deficits don’t matter, let’s gamble with our social security, why couldn’t those people have just left New Orleans, global warming isn’t real.

A couple of weeks ago the Bush appointed head of NASA said that it was arrogance for people to claim that one climate was “better” than another. The scientific, rational response was that that was correct: no climate is “better” than another, since that’s not an objective criterion. Republicans whooped this up.

Unsaid was that most scientists (yep, that’s right) think there’s a good chance that a huge amount of damage will be done and lives lost if we don’t take action now. But don’t believe that. Take the word of some crackpot bought by the oil industry. Gore has it right when he says the Republican party has been assaulting reason.

The carbon tax is the only thing that can work. I prefer the clean tax and will continue to advocate for it. Carbon trading is a less desirable variant, but still better than any of the alternatives.

We have to try to get the best and perhaps settle for something a bit less. The idea of the carbon tax is a good one. Nothing else will do the job.

Face the fact that the rich can always do better than the poor. That is the very definition of being rich. We should solve different problems separately. Our goal is to reduce CO2. We should be that in the most efficient way we can get. We should not use that as a tool for social engineering or redistribution. That was the fatal flaw in Kyoto.

Scottie, your comment to me is grossly misrepresentative of the reality that exists. The evidence indicates that humans have vastly increased greenhouse effect pollutants into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. This is hard science data.

The data also demonstrates that in the history of the world, massive volcanic eruptions, and meteorological events have had similar effects resulting in global climate change.

The conclusion of the majority of scientists is straightforward, increases in greenhouse effect pollutants whether volcanic gases and dust, or man made carbon pollutants, will have an effect on climatology if substantially increased.

Since, humans have significantly increased such pollutants, climate change will logically result, from the scientific evidence and correlations. Ergo, reversing mankind’s contributions to atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gases will have some reversing effect.

How much, how soon, and for how long, are debatable. But, the conclusions arrived at by the majority of scientists reviewing the data are logical and reasonably arrived at based on the data and evidence to date. Since, we are not gods, the data and evidence are all we have to work with, and until those conclusions or data change as a result of new evidence, it is logical given the potential consequences, that we should act in the best interests of mankind with the preponderance of the evidence we have available.

There are those who want this preponderance of the evidence to NOT COST them today. But, their search for evidence and consensus to defend policy which would not cost them, keeps coming up short either methodologically or logically. Your perspective appears to fit into this camp. And that’s OK. On any issue involving change, there will be those who resist. That too is a part of the natural way of things in human affairs. It is understandable. It is just not defensible in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion supporting change.

Apologies for being flippant. Long day and I am kind of beat. There are some very good reasons to start weaning off fossil fuels other than climate change. Energy independance from unstable and despotic regimes is a pretty good one.Balance of trade,huge military cost to secure sea lanes etc. not to mention occasional wars.

No, you are missing one very key piece to the puzzle. It makes many of the correct things you just said help you arrive at a wrong conclusion. None of us are questioning that we humans have put pollutants in the air that have caused damage to our environment. I am all for reducing those to the best of our ability.

The conclusion is what is at steak. I happen to believe mother earth is big enough to handle it. I believe that we would have a hard time destroying her if we purposely tried to “create global warming”

Many scientist, (and many came out of the woodwork when Al Gore said that they didn’t exist) agree with that premise based on facts and research. You guys would like the world to think that it is a small number and just a bunch of blind kooks.

This world has warmed and cooled over history. We know that! It has had warming trends and cooling trends that we can even count in the short time we have been recording them.

But the temperature records that you are looking at are not as reliable as you would want us to think.

Today we have great accurate technology. The ability to accurately record temperatures for every square inch of the earth. Only 70 years ago our record keeping and temperature measurements were few, not always accurate, and mildly placed around the world.

The point of this post from the beginning is that Al Gore is brilliant because in over-hyping and exaggerating facts and down right lying about the scientific community has made “us” preach his message.

My point would be if Al Gore would spend that time stirring up the big cities to get rid of the allergies, breathing problems, and just plain grossness that comes with smog, he would most likely be much more effective.

Instead he paints a fictional catastrophic situation and then wants a solution to fit his over sized problem. So does it sound to you like the best way to get a solution to the real problem?

Logically, this would over correct the problem and we will be talking about “global cooling” again. Yayyyyy. I like “global cooling” better! LOL

This is the problem that the Democrats let the far left try to solve the problems for many issues. They are always saying “the sky is falling” no matter what the subject. It comes from passion. I know that. But the fact remains that that is not the best way to come to a conclusion or a solution.

The scientific community is in disagreement on this. They by nature have a ever changing record based on theory and hypothesis. Their record over time has been .. wel… errr.. remember that long running series…. Christopher Columbus and the flat earth??

Mother earth however has a fantastic record of taking care of itself. She heals herself faster than we predict most of the time! Isny it amazing how you can cut yourself and you heal, cut a tree and it will heal.

We humans have the ability to scratch mother earth and not much more. The fact that Al Gore had to lie, exaggerate, and hype proves this point.

Global breathing. Scottie, do me a favor, put your mouth over a tail pipe, and see whether you or the car can blow that stuff out their harder. Actually, don’t do that. Let’s just assume that Cars can put out CO2 at a higher rate. I won’t even suggest that you try that stunt with a coal fired power plant.

Point would be that these machines put out CO2 at a much higher rate. A lot of these machines around, no? Also a lot of fossil fuels, as well, CO2 that hasn’t been banging around the atmosphere for quite a while. And we’re burning the living hell out of it.

You know, it’s got a certain isotopic mix. Something about the way that Carbon selectively gets taken up by plants. Because of nuclear decay, the mix is different for CO2 we’re producing from fossil fuels. That’s what nails us as the most likely source.

And we’re overloading the system. South seas around Antarctica, a known carbon sink, has stopped taking up the CO2, may have even stopped quite some time ago. The rate at which we’re putting this stuff out now exceeds the rate at which our environment can filter it out. Thus rising levels of CO2.

As for cycles, they tend to repeat, and it’s been a very long time since temperatures got this warm. Additionally climate has cycles, but over all, it doesn’t behave in nice smooth gradients. It has a tendency to change rather violently, the Sahara turning from grasslands to desert in just a couple of centuries.

On the subject of global cooling, it makes as much sense to bring that up as a disproof of global warming as it is to bring up Newtons laws of motion to disprove Einstein’s theory of Relativity. The thing people forgot to tell you was that modern climatology was only just beginning to properly model things then. Global Cooling was not considered minus global warming, but both outcomes were considered, in light of evidence that climate had shifted both ways, and that cooling effects had come of some pollution, as well as warming.

You’re getting your science in bits and pieces from people more interested in scoring rhetorical points than presenting a solid picture of science to you.

I’m participating in a survey of the weather and climate measurement stations in the U.S.
This project documents the exact locations with Lat/Lon coordinates and elevation using GPS.
We also take photos of the sites from the north, south, east and west to document the measuring environment and equipment condition of weather and climate monitoring stations.
So far in the U.S. only 136 stations are in the database with 1085 to go.
Some of the stations have been in place for 100 years.
If you go to the website and look at the gallery to see where the stations are sited and then look at the graph of the temperature record at that location, the reliability of claims of 1998 being the warmest year on record becomes suspect. I would like to know which measuring sites were used as the basis for that claim.
I was amazed to learn that there is a site that actually has air conditioning exhaust blowing directly on it. Some sites are even in paved parking lots next to buildings. It’s no wonder they record a rise in average temperature over the last 100 years! The sites where an urban environment has grown up around them with asphalt, concrete, brick, machinery, etc. around them show a general rise in average temperature. The sites located in fields, pastures and rural areas show either a generally flat profile or a sight decrease in average temperature. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues as the database grows.
This is basic science-observation of empirical data without opinion or bias, letting the facts speak for themselves.

Well, not really. It’s just that one person posted so many times that it might seem that way.

Ever heard the term blogoholic? I’ve always thought of this entity as a unique and distinct form of baiting troll. The postings tend to be numerous, rapid, generally thoughtless and ill informed, yet often loaded with a lot of baseless arrogance.

I’ll work on my arrogance a frequent complain of my kids, however, I’d like to see more dialog and less accusations. This discussion needs more sharing of common ideas, like leaving the world a better place today than what we inherited. I first read that thought on this blog site. However it seems too many are entrenched in global warming being 100% true without reproach. I’d like to see more dialogs, less positions.

Good luck, Honest. As Tony just below you showed, if you don’t believe, you’re not worth being treated with any kind of respect. It’s a religion to too many people.

It reminds me to something Kevin Smith wrote for Chris Rock to say in Dogma.

Rufus: He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.

Bethany: Having beliefs isn’t good?

Rufus: I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can’t generate. Life becomes stagnant.

Many on both sides are functioning on ‘beliefs’ and not ‘ideas’. Therefore it just becomes a holy war with no exchange of ideas and dialog that could bring people together. Of course, this is a tactic by the major parties to keep us apart, instill beliefs into us instead of giving us a free flow of ideas to explore and build upon.

Perhaps one thing that everybody could agree on is that people should educate themselves about this issue before signing onto one side, drawing a line in the sand and vowing to defend that line to the death.

I’d suggest that everybody should stop for a minute and think about where they’re getting their information. Personally, I think it’s horrifying that the vast majority of people are getting their information about a scientific question not from scientists, but from what right or left wing blogs, talk radio hosts, actors, musicians, or politicians are telling them. It’s especially insidious because these bloggers, talk-show hosts, musicians and politicians are often invoking, without evidence, the supposed “views” of the scientific community to support their agenda—whatever that is.

If somebody tells you something like “The consensus of scientific opinion is X,” then do you believe X? Most people do, and that makes sense. Almost NOBODY has any damn clue about something as complicated as global climate patterns and are willing to defer to expert opinions.

But you don’t have to read very far into the literature about global warming to realize that this is actually a VERY contentious debate among the scientific community, and that those who talk about a “consensus” on one side of the other are stretching the definition of “consensus” very far.

Many of the most prominent top minds in the field disagree with each other about this question. Somehow that fact has gotten lost, but that’s the nature of our political culture.

But here is what is truly sad and pathetic.

The eyes of the public are not turned here to debates between Ivy League scientists about global warming, although those debates are taking place.

No.

The debates that the public pays attention to are between Al Gore and Sean Hannity, which is just as valuable and informative as a debate between Elmer Fudd and Bart Simpson.

Rhinehold,
That’s bunk. It’s not “religion” and “belief” when someone really takes a good long look at what the science is saying, and what all the most respected scientists are agreeing upon. As Gerrold said, it’s all about probabilities, and whether or not we should do something based upon what they appear to be, or just ignore them and hope for the best.

Btw, your comment #225482 was chock full of bunk, too. Of course Gore would have been a better president than Bush — because even a canned ham would have been a better president than Bush. And of course Gore wouldn’t have been worse — because at the very least he would not have lied us into a war, or instituted torture, or shredded the Constitution the way that Bush has. As for Incompetent, that is not a word anyone could honestly apply to Gore — unless they were a rabid liberal hater.
Case in point, if Gore has been so incompetent at what he’s been doing lately, then how is it possible that the whole world is now talking about global warming?

Traveller, the debate is Global climate change, not American climate change. Changes are not going to be equal across the planet nor simultaneous. I think we have to look at global monitoring to see the issue as the consensus of the scientists see it.

I can measure the change in Bahamas for example, and see little variation over time. However, the Serengetti is a very different picture. The total of change occurring around the globe is the issue. The earth has but one climatology, which will affect some others much faster and more dramatically than others. Hell, some areas on the globe will actually improve with global warming, and others will actually improve with global cooling. But, by and large, those areas won’t be where major population centers now exist. Though they may have to become new population centers if climate change causes the potential mass human migrations that a severe climate change will necessitate.

Jack, there are other roads. You just don’t want research or witness them. The wealthy special interests killed the Electric Vehicle. Bringing the electric vehicle back into the U.S. could be a huge down payment on reducing CO2 emissions.

A number of home and small business development practices like earth berming could also dramatically reduce the need for coal fired electric plants. I am not saying we should ignore carbon tax caps and reductions, but, neither should we put all our eggs to address the problem in one basket.

If it appears the wealthy special interests are hijacking the carbon tax for their own interests instead of the globe’s and America’s, we will be far better off also having invested in many other avenues of CO2 emission reductions as well.

And no, nuclear power is not putting eggs in another basket. That is trading one set of horrendously expensive problems for another, until we develop a safe, cost effective, and efficient long term solution to nuclear waste, which already has our intelligence agencies squirming as the contemplate the horrendous lack of security for such wastes around the globe, and in our own country as well. Just two or three well aimed and targeted RPG’s could cost taxpayers 10’s of millions or more in HazMat cleanup, right here in America.

With the thousands of Companies making products
for all of us here, an threw out the world along with
all their scientists, with Federal, State,
Local, and Foreign Governments, Have all been in
Court settling cases for Pollution and had to clean
up their act. Scientists have been killed for whistle-blowing, an thousands of people have been
killed due to exposure too one type of chemical or
another. I do not want to write a book here but we can not trust these problems will ever go away
with out the motto of Trust but Verify attitude.
I would be willing to bet most of you here on
this site have poured things into the toilet on
down the drain. I see no reason that we can’t all
help to clean up the environment. Do your part!
When You quote a Scientist, please consider who
is paying them an the reason for reporting their
findings before you sign your name defending their
findings.

That’s bunk. It’s not “religion” and “belief” when someone really takes a good long look at what the science is saying, and what all the most respected scientists are agreeing upon.

No, it isn’t. But as I said, many on both sides are not doing this. Are you really going to tell me that there isn’t a large portion of people on both sides that treat this as a religion? Case in point, you attack my statement but completely miss what I was saying because of what you THOUGHT it said about said religion…

Btw, your comment #225482 was chock full of bunk, too.

Of course, it presses upon another of your beliefs.

Of course Gore would have been a better president than Bush

And you suggest this because? No one could be worse? Sorry, but your hatred deludes you, there could be (and have been IMO) much worse than Bush.

because at the very least he would not have lied us into a war, or instituted torture, or shredded the Constitution the way that Bush has.

No, he would have shredded it in how own unique incompetent way. Wasn’t he part of the administration that completely ignored the first attack on the WTC, arrested a few flunkies, and left the masterminds free and continuing to plot in other countries for another way to attack them (and other US interests) for the next 8 years?

I wonder what his answer to 9/11 would have been? Oh wait, I already know because he already did NOTHING before.

As for Incompetent, that is not a word anyone could honestly apply to Gore — unless they were a rabid liberal hater.

So, someone who has a different opinion is a ‘rabid liberal hater’ and couldn’t possibly have a valid disagreement with your point of view? Gee, doesn’t that sound like a RELIGION to you?

Case in point, if Gore has been so incompetent at what he’s been doing lately, then how is it possible that the whole world is now talking about global warming?

What has he accomplished? He has been talking about the environment for, what, 30 years? The majority of thinking people find his movie a huge exaggeration, even climatologists point out his use of Kilamonjaro was completely wrong, etc…

It is not Al Gore that has gotten people here, it has been the news media talking about it, ad naseum, that has shaped the views of people. Discovery Channel, National Geographic, the IPCC, etc. All of these organizations are what is pushing people to beleiving in ‘Global Warming’ (sigh), Al Gore is just in the same place he’s been in for 30 years at the right time to capitalize.

Please, give me a list of ANYTHING that he has accomplished that shows he is competent at anything, other than to funnel money from Chineese officials to the Clinton/Gore election fund in exchange for missle technologies without getting nailed to a tree for treason?

Hell, he couldn’t even beat George Freakin’ Bush as an incumbent with a booming economy and no war. And before you start with ‘he did win’ or some other silly garbage, it shouldn’t have been THAT CLOSE. He couldn’t even carry his own state!

BTW, Please do talk him into running and help him get the nomination. I don’t necessarily think we should have one single party running the country and this would help ensure Guiliani or Thompson or some other republican would have an easy talk to the White House.

David R. Remer,
The surface stations project was only launched in June of this year. The goal is to have all the monitoring stations around the world in the database eventually.
If the stations where the actual measurements are being made are flawed shouldn’t we know?
Actually, the debate is anthropogenic global warming vs. climate change.
The climate is constantly changing; it always has and always will.

“Changes are not going to be equal across the planet nor simultaneous.”

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. In fact, one of the reasons your cult is moving away from the phrase”global warming”and using the phrase “climate change” is the inescapable fact that global warming isn’t global. Some areas are warming and some aren’t. (like Greenland and Antarctica) Just tonight I read that the Jo’burg Live Earth concert was a flop because the cold weather kept the crowds away (how ironic) and Buenos Aires had its first snowfall since 1918.

“I think we have to look at global monitoring to see the issue as the consensus of the scientists see it.”

First, science isn’t consensus and consensus isn’t science. Trite, but true.
Monitoring is the point of the surface stations project; to verify that the data from the monitoring is valid.

“Hell, some areas on the globe will actually improve with global warming, and others will actually improve with global cooling. But, by and large, those areas won’t be where major population centers now exist.”

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence is an assumption, just like the core belief of the GW cult, that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming (proven false) and it’s all mankind’s doing.

Changing climate has caused major disruptions in civilizations before, many times, and will again.

The fact that the 2000 election was close in no way shows that he is “incompetent”. People voted for Dubya because he seemed like a friendly chap they would like to have a (nonalcoholic) beer with. All I can say to anyone who voted for him is: I hope you enjoyed your freakin’ beer!

traveller, speaking of cults, have you determined any of those internalist/leftist orgaizations/people who have been coercing the scientist into agreeing with the global warming theory and persecuting the vast minions of those scientist that oppose this theory?

Yeah, I don’t recall being inducted into any sort of cult. Maybe they erased my memory.

My tongue-in-cheek reference to religion was apparently not a good idea. The fact is, the model of faith-vs-skepticism just doesn’t work here. People who claim that global warming is a myth are no more “skeptical” than someone who believes that the LAPD should find Nicole Brown Simpson’s real killers.

Come to think of it, the only religious argument I have heard re global warming is that the Earth was created by God for mankind and so it is impossible for us to mess it up. That’s an argument on the “skeptical” side.

Traveller said: “In fact, one of the reasons your cult is moving away from the phrase ‘global warming’ and using the phrase ‘climate change’ is the inescapable fact that global warming isn’t global.”

Whoa! First of all, when did I take ownership of any cult? My writings over the years demonstrate very adequately that I am an independent thinker and voter, and don’t buy into cultism on any side of any issue.

Second, are you suggesting that scientists of 30 years ago with less sophisticated modeling and vastly inferior computer power than now exists, were cultists because their attempts and methods to understand climate change had not yet matured? If so, what a politically motivated and incredible unintelligent suggestion that is. It’s like calling the Ancient Greeks cultists for not understanding the weather patterns of the Aegean Sea due to lack of computing power and probability and statistical modeling.

In the 1960’s I learned of scientists floating the theory of global cooling. In the late 1970’s I first of the potential for global warming. In the early 2000’s, I first heard of global climate change affecting different areas in different ways depending upon topography, winds and shifts, rising water levels, oceanic currents, etc.

I see no cult here. What I see is knowledge increasing as more scientific minds, resources, and computing power are applied to this area of inquiry, validating and invalidating each other’s work until a consensus is built that stands the tests of validity, reliability, and predictability.

That said, it is not wise or prudent to wait until predictability validates whether or not human production of climate change enhancing products into the atmosphere, proves the theories. Such waiting may easily cost 100’s of millions of lives and decades of failure to act to relocate people and infrastructure to safer, more affordable and hospitable climes, as well as development of climate adaptability technologies. And of course, with such enormous demographic changes potentially possible, one has to consider the impending social consequences of collapsed economies, wars, and anarchy that would attend such failures to act preemptively.

Traveller said: “The second sentence is an assumption, just like the core belief of the GW cult, that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming (proven false) and it’s all mankind’s doing.”

No, Traveller, it is logical and predictable to state the large climate changes will alter the pattern of location for major population centers. Climate change means some inhospitable climates will change for the better, and some hospitable climates will change for the worse. Modern major population centers on this globe have been centered where hospitable climate has favored them. Seen any major population centers in Greenland the Arctic, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or the Sahara, lately? Me neither.

C’mon, man, a little logic and fact can go along way if one exercises them. Massachusetts has already lost 200 miles of coastline to rising oceanic levels, causing shoreline businesses and homes to retreat. And that is just a little tiny area of the globe. Surely, you can extrapolate that fact and logic beyond assumption that global climate change will alter the locations of some population centers. New Orleans for example is a primary candidate as ocean levels rise. I mean, it has already seen a huge population relocation as a result of a climatological event.

One does not have to assume, one can simply look at the recent past to see large climate change WILL IN FACT relocate populations. Also note the Indonesian Tsunami, which of course was not climatologically caused, but the ocean did rise, and a huge number of the population was relocated to graves. And if the Midwest becomes more arid, will not the current trend of migration from Midwestern farming towns leave a host of ghost towns in its wake. It is already happening, Traveller. Time and climate change can and will move entire population centers.

Darfur stands as testament to the power of diminishing natural resources and the huge human relocations and dislocations that occur as a result.

Woody Mena,
I’ve been using the word cult as a tongue in cheek term of derision for believers in global warming since long before your reference to religion.
Believers in global warming are often dogmatic and cult-like in their response to heretics like myself. They cling to their belief no matter where the facts lead.

“Come to think of it, the only religious argument I have heard re global warming is that the Earth was created by God for mankind and so it is impossible for us to mess it up. That’s an argument on the “skeptical” side.”

That red herring is an argument I’ve never heard anyone make.

David R. Remer,
That wasn’t Rhinehold you quoted, it was me.
You’re presenting a false argument. My use of the derisive term cult doesn’t refer to scientific inquiry, as you well know.

I’m concerned about the loss of liberty, economic collapse, wars, famine and anarchy that may be brought about by preemptive action based on computer models that can’t even predict the past (known outcomes) and are contradicted by actual observation.

David R. Remer,
I stand corrected. I made a poor argument. As I’ve argued before climate change has caused huge changes in civilizations in the past and will do so again.
Do you have a reference that shows the loss of shoreline in Massachusetts is caused by rising sea level instead of erosion?
Using the Indonesian tsumani in an argument on global warming? Please. I’ve come to expect better of you.
Darfur is a testament to butchery, not diminishing resources.

Rhinehold, I’ve got a busy day ahead so I won’t have a chance to reply to your ranting until this evening. I’ll just comment on this:

“So, someone who has a different opinion is a ‘rabid liberal hater’ and couldn’t possibly have a valid disagreement with your point of view?”

I don’t see anything valid about smearing Gore with the word “incompetent” just because you’re twisting in every direction trying to do a hit piece on him. And truthfully yes, I suspect that you are a liberal hater in general, not because you appear to be a global warming denier, or because of these particular comments about Gore, but because that is the accumulated impression I’ve gathered from reading what you write in this blog.

I haven’t seen a lot of facts deployed in this debate to dispute global warming. Dozens of comments ago I asked for an example of Gore saying that verifiably false about global warming. All I get is innuendo about how “everybody knows” what a liar and exagarrater he is.

I gave a an example of a theological argument on the anti-warming side. If there are any theological arguments on the pro-warming side (like, say, carbon dioxide is evil) I would be happy to hear them.

I am not twisting in order to explain the opinion I’ve held about Al Gore for the past 15 years. He failed the country as VP, he couldn’t beat a lame candidate in 2000, he has been wrong many times on the environmental front in specifics for decades, between his book and movie overreaching the science. In fact, I suggest that his over-exaggerating has done more to harm the movement than help it because by doing so he becomes a target for the non-believers to point to with political points.

BTW, I’ve explained my views on ‘Global Warming’ (ick) many times and I see you still get it wrong.

Sometime yesterday some writers accused me of calling climatology “junk science” and of denying that global warming is occurring. The first part is absolutely false — climatology is a legitimate science that when practiced in an unbiased, empirical manner, can produce results beneficial to all of mankind. Like any other science, however, those who are actual climatologists may have disputes over the findings and conclusions of their peers and some are not above being swayed by the political correctness of the day.

Junk science is the unethical practice of taking a position on an issue, then manipulating the findings of others or skewing one’s own data to justify the conclusion. This is precisely what Honest Al Gore did in compiling the “facts” in his opinion piece, “An Inconvenient Truth.” It harkins back to the early days of Adolf Hitler and the use of The Big Lie — contrary to most people’s thinking, telling a huge whopper over and over again eventually brings in believers who will finally deny the truth even when it is there in front of their faces.

I would say Gore has done ten times what Bush has done, but that would be an incredible disservice to Gore. Bush has ruined this country. He’s generally considered the worst president ever and he hasn’t even left office yet. He’s done so much damage to this country that I’m amazed you can even mention them both in the same breath, much less suggest Gore would have been a worse president. Sorry, it shows you’re out of touch to say the least. Only the most rabid Republican could possibly believe that. Call yourself independent if it makes you feel better, but you’re as brainwashed as any of them.

As for whether global warming is occurring, I simply don’t know, and neither do most honest individuals who bother to actually try to find out. It takes a very long time to ascertain climate change — a few years of above average temperatures is far too few to make a legitimate prediction, and claiming that that temperature change is all our fault and that the oceans are going to rise until we’re living in Water World holds about as much truth as when your folks told you not to cross your eyes or they would get stuck that way!

Looking back through a lot of people’s comments, I am beginning to notice a distinct trend:
Those who agree with Gore and his message launch into attacks against those they disagree with. They also change the issues at random and make accusations without foundations. I have heard the same types of arguments from advocates of the global warming theory. They often accuse those with whom they disagree as being Flat Earthers, anti-evolution, or just plain stupid and not deserving of being listened to.
Those who disagree with Gore seem to gravitate toward the rational, rather than emotional.

Those who disagree with Gore seem to gravitate toward the rational, rather than emotional.

Being reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. Those of us on the other side of the debate probably have the exact opposite impression. It comes from the logical fallacy of thinking yourself rational and your opponents to be irrational. It has very little to do with the actual content of the debate, but it instead is a result of defense mechanisms.

I really wish there was some way I could download all this B.S. and use it to fertilize my lawn. Both sides of this issue are being silly trying to outdo each other with facts not in evidence. I can think of many scenerios that if true would require immediate action. Man made global warming is not one of them. Anyone who believes puny man can somehow manipulate the global environment is suffering from a “God” complex. One volcano, one earthquake, one meteor striking earth or some other natural occuring event can make supposed man-made global warming disappear from the headlines and this blog. Conserve and wisely use our natural resources, you bet. Ruin our global economy and plunge the world into frenzied responses to a fairytail, no way.

First, he mentions that we are seeing the warmest tempuratures in over 1000 years. Actually, the temperatures in the 1600s during the Mediveal warm period were higher.

Second, he points to the disappearing of snow on Mount Kilamonjaro as an example of ‘man made global warming’ when it is in fact NOT a result of such a theory.

Third, he predicted a huge increase in hurricanes year after year which have not occurred. Perhaps last year was just an ‘anomoly’? It is possible that an increased temperature in the gulf could strenghten hurricanes, but it is not likely to increase the frequency.

Fourth, he’s suggested that the ‘seas will rise 20 feet’ when in reality the IPCC suggests a maximum increase of 23 inches during this time period.

Fifth, he’s stated “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” when in reality that is not true at all. Geologists have found that in the past 15,000 years there have been at least 10 large swings, much more great than what we’ve seen in the past 400 years.

Sixth, he suggests that Global Warming is responsible for spreading malaria, when most biologists dismiss this notion.

I could go on but I *think* I’ve made my point. In case I hadn’t, let’s see what scientists who agree with Gore have said!

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

The reality is that while most scientists agree that man is responsible for some of the warming we are seeing, they mostly take a middle ground of the debate, challenging what they see as extremism on BOTH sides.

Which is pretty much my stance as well. Gore is causing more harm than good, IMO, as he has always been guilty of. Overexaggerating for his own self-importance, wanting to be taken seriously to the point of causing either alarmism by those he convinces or a convenient target for those that he turns away from the topic. He’s a polarizing figure when we need a uniting one.

I think the South Park guys hit the nail right on the head, to be honest… This is ManBearPig if I’ve ever seen it.

Jim, I wish I could have made my points as suscinctly as you have. The world is a very big place and its climate and environment have changed drastically over eons of time. The impact of man on this planet has only become apparent during the past couple of hundred years, and what we don’t know about climate far exceeds what we do know. Radically altering the world’s economies in pursuit of reducing CO2 without even understanding what the impact of doing so will be, based on conjectures and feelings — which is exactly what Kyoto and Gore would have us do — borders on insanity.

Ponder this: Honest Al and the environmentalist groups have carte blanche to say whatever they want with complete immunity. It doesn’t matter whether what they say is true or not. For years, enviro groups filed lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent all logging and even clearing underbrush from U.S. forests, claiming that what we needed was to return forests to their “natural” state. Most accredited foresters can tell you that forests in their natural, healthy state are very different from the overgrown mess we see in the West. Uncut undergrowth is, in fact, not natural and, in fact, acts as tinder. The result? In the past few years we have seen wild fires escalate to levels never before seen, such as the Rodeo Fire in Arizona a couple of years ago and the current fire in Utah. These are examples where the lack of knowledge and gut-reactive environmental organizations created more damage to the environment than protecting it. Fire clears the undergrowth of forests and creates more healthy forests; but when there are inhabited areas such as Lake Arrowhead in California and Show Low in Arizona, you cannot allow fires to simply burn out of control.
Has anyone ever called the environmentalists to task on this problem? Just as those advocating eugenics in the early 20th century, those who advocate enacting severe measures to counter what they perceive as global warming doubtfully can foresee the consequences of their myopia.

For those of you not familiar with it, Eugenics was another pseudo science that caught the attention of many in the world during the early 1900s. Like global warming, it became a popular “truth,” gaining adherents such as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Woodrow Wilson, among others. Its premise was that through sterilization of “inferior” humans, such as those with mental illness, etc., mankind would be able to eliminate many forms of illness and deficiencies in the future.
But as one might recall, Hitler and the Nazis took eugenics to its ultimate conclusion in the form of firing squads and gas chambers.

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments.
Studies … show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). … The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.

Joint science academies’ statement 2007

In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement
It is unequivoval that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantely caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

U.S. National Research Council, 2001

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities…Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century

American Meteorological Society

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years…Human activities have become a major source of environmental change

American Geophysical Union

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate.

American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change

American Astronomical Society

In endorsing the “Human Impacts on Climate” statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change

American Association for the Advancement of Science

The American Association for the Advancement of Science stated, “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society

Geological Society of America

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries

American Chemical Society

There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real…Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses

Just the opinions of the most prestigious Science Societies in the United States, whom some of you are saying are involved in junk science.

What does oil in the ground and profits have to do with global warming? The fact is there are many major corporations gearing up for carbon credits and Honest Al Gore just so happens to own a carbon credit company. Global warming wasn’t cooked up to make people rich; but it was cooked up. First of all, environmental groups depend upon fundraising as their means of existence, and admitting that the air quality is better, the water cleaner, and food safer will certainly do nothing to help boost donations. So, environmental fundraising depends upon the Eternal Hype. Things are always getting worse … oil companies are to blame … greenhouse gases … timber companies are denuding our forests … dangerous genetically altered food … ad nauseum. Global warming and next, sudden climate change, are just the latest in a long liturgy of Gloom and Doom. And everything is always Our Fault. So while only the heads of environmental groups and their lawyers can live in big houses in Oakton, VA and drive expensive Mercedes and BMWs while the rest of their naive underlings soldier on, the environmentalists in general are definitely not in it for the money. But Big Money is just as important to the environmentalists as it is to those in oil or industry or law, only the latter are not nearly as hypocritical about it.

Goomba, the same was said of physics after the Churches control of empirical science was broken. The vast majority of such science following, including economic theory and economic probability and statistics, the same math used by global climate change scientists, have reaped the wealthiest nation in the world.

So, your point is?

Sigmund Freud was wrong about most of his ideas. But, his direction of inquiry and methodologies stirred the greatest revolution of human introspection and understanding the world has seen since the days of Confucious, Aristotle, and Siddhartha. Modern mental health and treatment of our soldiers with PTSD can be traced directly back to Sigmund Freud and his followers and eager fulfillment of such a human need in the face asylums springing up everywhere with husbands, wives, sons and daughters of poor, middle class, and wealthy families alike.

A host of mental disorders were eliminated as a result of Freud’s seminal work like Phenelketinuria. What’s that? That’s my point. No one suffers from it anymore.

While Sigmund Freud was wrong about most of his theories, as the early scientists predicting a probability of a mini-ice age were also wrong, the direction and gist of their work is absolutely right. Sigmund Freud’s work led to the eradication of the common beliefs that mental illness was a product of sin, voodoo, or evil spirits that had to be bled from the body. Climatologists may not be correct about the exact turns and twists of climate change, but, they are right that climate change can wreak havoc on masses of human beings, economics, and domestic and international relations, and to the extent that humans are contributing to that change, they have a moral and ethical responsibility to knock it off as expeditiously as possible.

It is so remarkably unfortunate that the wealthiest nation on earth has such an uneducated populace that it cannot recognize the immense value and underwriting of our nation’s greatness which, cause and effect proofs as science, and probability and statistics as science, have contributed and maintain.

Much of the math used by the Federal Reserve, the OMB, and the CBO, is based on probability and statistical modeling which is incapable of definite predictable date and time and effects of economic policy. Yet, we have managed to build the wealthiest nation on earth with such scientific methodology. This is the same probability and statistical modeling used by climatologists.

Those who don’t want their dollars spent on ameliorating climate changes, will ignorantly argue there is no cause and effect proof that this effect will occur at that location on this particular date. And that is just what their arguments boil down to, ignorance. Americans are woefully ignorant of math as a population, which is why countries like India, China, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan are exporting 750 billion dollars a year more products into our country than we are able to export to theirs.

It is why Toyota has dominated our auto markets. Their probability and statistical modeling of American consumer values and practices told them that building cars that hold value for years longer, that perform better, and have a competitive price, will win American consumers over despite the immense fears such domination of our markets would entail. Their math was absolutely correct. Even though, their math could not tell them, in what areas of the country sales would first take off, when the general consumer would put “Buy American” slogans aside, or whether the Big Three would compete on the same strengths or not. There math did tell them, being first, building better value, and competitive pricing would one day make them the dominant vehicle on American highways.

The exact same analogy holds for Global Climate Change. It can’t predict exactly when, where, and how much. But, it can assess if Humans are contributing and they are, and that change is underway, and combination of natural and human created causes will affect large numbers of human beings adversely, including most, if not all nations, but not in what order or degree of severity. That is the nature and limitation of probability and statistical scientific methodology.

Political parties and candidates and lobbyists and special interests spend 100’s of billions each decade on this probability and statistical scientific methodology. Are they all fools wasting money? Or, are they able to put that science to use maximizing their efforts?

If you are a free market advocate, you would have to answer that they are not fools. Ergo, to be logically consistent, one would have to agree that the same methodology for global climate change scientists is also valid and worth heeding within the constraints on its abilities to predict trends, not specific incidents.

I can debunk the hurricane thing easily. People are simply putting words in his mouth. I’ve seen Inconvenient Truth, and checked a transcript online.
It is true that he connects Hurricane Katrina to global warming. What he did NOT do was claim that there would be lot of hurricanes every single year from 2006 onward. Even if he did, that wouldn’t make him a liar. Just a poor prophet.

Most of the charges that Gore distorted the science are greatly exaggerated. I had the same reaction after seeing the movie and then hearing all these charges. If you have a stake in such things, you can rip quotes out of context to prove all sorts of things. I’ve even read a prominent article writer here say such things while admitting he hadn’t seen the movie. At any rate, here’s some analysis of Glenn Beck’s charges that Gore missrepresented climate science.

The contrarians on climate change have an odd habit. They tell us that our scientific position is a Flat Earth sensibility, an irrational belief in old received wisdom as opposed to modern scientific sensibilities, even as they embrace scientific concepts of the world that are actually behind the times.

They tell us that the Small amount of carbon dioxide we put out couldn’t possibly change the environment, even as we far outpace volcanoes as a source of the gas, even despite the fact that mere parts per million of this gas are responsible for much of the warmth we receive right now.

They tell us that everything’s just cyclical, that nature smoothly goes back and forth between cold periods and hot on this planet, neglecting a great deal of evidence that shows that climate changes are violent and quick, the Sahara, and neglecting to mention which cycle it was that has gotten us this warm, or when the last time the cycle commenced was.

They push what was once the conventional wisdom, that climate is generally stable, not sensitive to small changes in the atmosphere or elsewhere. They are marketing a pre-1950 vision of graceful, predictable climate.

But then they turn around, and call themselves the scientific future, the successors, the paradigm breakers. It’s all a bunch of rhetorical nonsense, an attempt to impress people with claims of a rising movement against the science that supports Anthropogenic global warming, when in fact the theory is gaining wider acceptance.

Perhaps science will disprove this notion, and we’ll find that global warming was a ghost in the data. If we are to be scientific about that, our doubts should be based on strong evidence, equal to the broad claimss being made, not simply made from personal belief or disbelief.

There are a lot of vested interests at play here, from folks who just don’t want to be inconvenienced, to corporations that don’t want to go the way of the buggy-whip makers. We must be plain about this: whatever they wish for or want is irrelevant to what the science says, or should say.

As for alarmism? Temperatures are skyrocketing in arctic, an unusual feature of the warming not seen in most other warming events in recent times. Glaciers, ice sheets, and ice shelfs that have survived tens, even hundreds of thousands of years in a warmer climate are melting now, catastrophically collapsing. We’re seeing all kinds of populations move north from former ranges. We’ve experienced weather far outside the norm and temperatures warmer than any for not only decades, but centuries. We have carbon sinks saturated with CO2, Oceans becoming more acidic—

Alarmism? Merriam Webster Online defines Alarmism as the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger. With all that’s happening and has been observed, from the melting of permafrost in Siberia and Alaska to the almost certainly anthropogenic mix of carbon isotopes in the carbon dioxide going up in our skies, our exciting of fears and warning of dangers is hardly unwarranted. The alarmists are those who think that our nation’s prosperity and our way of life cannot survive, cannot thrive, if we choose to face the likely threat of global warming.

Personally, I think it would be rather cowardly of us to cling to the status quo out of fear of the challenges ahead. Efficiency is an economic good. Renewability of energy sources is an economic good. Refining the technology to do these things sooner rather than later, is an economic good. Living in a more sustainable balance with our environment is an economic good. Having America do it ahead of other seeking to reduce their emission could be very lucrative for us.

If we build the better mousetrap for CO2, the world will beat yet another path to our door, and America will once again benefit from its ingenuity.

Rhinehold, I really intended to reply to your rant, and with that thought in mind I just went and read it again. Then, I read the comments you’ve followed up with. I sat here shaking my head, and I suddenly realized there would be absolutely no point in continuing to argue with you.
Let’s face it, you hate Al Gore so deeply that whatever I could choose say, you’d just come back with another bunch of disdainful smears, and back and forth it would go.
Why waste my time — or yours?

So keep your hate for Al Gore (and liberals in general). I admire the man for many reasons, only one of which is his intelligent, well reasoned and articulately presented stance on global climate change. I’m going to keep right on hoping that he’ll decide to enter the race in ‘08. He won before, and I think he could do it again by a much greater margin.

Howling Willy-
The Left. The Left. The Left.
Yeah, we all decided, as a secret conspiracy club that we’d send Al Gore out to found our new religion. We haven’t gotten around to sacrificing children yet, but that’s next on the agenda.

Seriously though, Gore’s using his standing as a public figure, not as a scientist. That the right relentlessly attacks him has actually worked in his favor. People expecting Al Bore have instead been presented with a very compelling argument for changing policy. The right doesn’t like this because they’re not in front of this.

As for the climatologists? It’s a vague claim that’s almost impossible for the casual person to debunk. Trick of the matter is, it takes time to research and read about these things, and you can always find a number of people to claim as a sizeable minority or hidden majority. At the end of the day, though, it’s argument by numbers and argument by Accent, rather than a proper survey of the science.

As for Liberals? I don’t know what to tell you. You seem to have a soft spot in your heart for us, so I know to look to you for sympathy in the future

Stephen Daugherty- I would like to thank you an
an David Remer, for your informative articles posted
today. I am hoping others may also see that an
once of prevention is worth more than a pound of
cure.

aDRIENNE, I really intended to reply to your rant, and with that thought in mind I just went and read it again. Then, I read the comments you’ve followed up with. I sat here shaking my head, and I suddenly realized there would be absolutely no point in continuing to argue with you.
Let’s face it, you hate GEORGE BUSH so deeply that whatever I could choose say, you’d just come back with another bunch of disdainful smears, and back and forth it would go.
Why waste my time — or yours?

So keep your hate for George bush (and conservatives in general).

Sorry Just wondering if I could make that fit.

Thank you Reinhold for your “RANT” I do not understand why we cannot point out lies, inconsistancies, and hype, but the far left can dish that out whetehr they supply any facts or not.

The fact is each of those “inconsistencies” really hurt the cause and the solution. Just find a leader for global warming who can prove his point truthfully.

I don’t understand why some people on this site can not discuss a topic without resorting to insults. It would be nice if the discussion could center upon the merits of points presented and not a game of scoring points for the most obnoxious and annoying response. No Gore is not perfect and may be wrong on some of his points. I don’t know I’m not a scientist and find the data difficult for my nonscience brain to handle. I do know this that if Gore was republican all those claiming that gobal warming doesn’t exists would be screaming about how we have to do something about gobal warming. If Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, or Sean Hannity were supporting the idea of gobal warming we would not be having this discussion. People are against the message because of the messenger and it has nothing to do with whether gobal warming exists or not. Let’s don’t pretend any further that this discussion is really anything other than a political debate about whether you like Gore or not. For me I just think we need to improve the planet not just for us humans but for the animals we share it with. How we get there I don’t care. If it costs us more money then so be it, money is not the saving grace of this country or any other country. and yes personally I believe we a damaging our planet. Common sense says that anything that is abused will show signs of abuse and if the abuse continues in the end it will die. How long it will take isn’t as clear or at least not clear to me. Previously on this site when global warming was mentioned and the discussion turned to attacking I asked this simple question “What could it hurt to treat our home as if global warming does exist” because if we do nothing and those of you yelling that it doesn’t exist are wrong then what. So I ask again “what could it hurt to try and improve our planet?”

Howlin Willy, You have asked why “The Left” has put such a partisian lighting rod as Al Gore out there to make the case for Global Warming. Can you elaborate on what Gore has done on the political front to have become such a lighting rod. All I remember is he ran for Prez after being Vice Prez, lost, bowed out gracefully and so far has stayed out of politics, unless of course you consider the global warming all about politics.
Also, when the left next gets together to pick our global worming spokesman who would you suggest we choose to get the message out in such a way as not to have such a political bent to it and hopefully involve more people across the political spectrum?

You can keep claiming the fact that Al Gore lied is just a lie all you want. The far left will always believe that. We know that. We are not trying to change your opinion. The rest can decide for them selves.

Ummm Carolyn,

We all agree we should do WHATEVER it takes to improve the planet. If Al Gore and the far left were correct, I would stand lock stock and barrel.

Look into this Carolyn, I always encourage people to look for themselves. :

Ill leave it to people to look at some of those 449 news articles on both sides to decide. Again, I wouldn’t even try to convince the far left on anything. I’d rather just let them fight with Nancy Pelosi!

I looked at a few of them. Maybe my sample was too small, but I didn’t come across any scientifically based analysis. Rather, I saw references to citizen polls, Rush’s wanting wagering Las Vegas style, etc., etc. What point are you trying to make? Why should anyone substitute news stories for scientific analysis?

They are all news articles. A good place to start research. The point is this:

You can point to one, I can point to another, both supporting our own side!

Let the reader look, and decide if Al Gore has all the answers or has he totally overstated the what he calls truth. Then decide if we should follow him for our conclusions and solutions. Or should we find a more qualified person who does not have to stretch the truth to make his point.

Why don’t we just follow the science? News articles are useful for hearing about new analyses, or about gauging public reaction, or a host of other things, but they don’t provide more than a few points that to be properly understood must be placed in context. That’s not a slam; it’s just an acknowledgement of the scope of that form of media.

Many of you have said the same thing, Al Gore has no standing as a scientist so why listen to him? It’s another example of simplistic thinking and attack the messenger rhetoric.

Al Gore has been talking about this for a long time now. And frankly if scientists wrote our laws and made public policy you might have a valid point but if there is a serious issue requiring a serious response we need our politicians (yes, they are the leaders we are stuck with) to lead.

The difference between an Al Gore and James Imhofe is Gore has been looking at the science for decades with genuine concern while Imhofe is a conspiracy nut.

What does Katrina have to do with anything? Gore never claimed any particular hurricane can be attributable to global warming. Go look up his recent testimony before the Senate. What he did say was that scientists think that, in general, we can expect more intense storms.

Scottie, there are many issues relating to Katrina. Right now we are talking about climate change. Gore does not attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. If others do, that is their issue.

I wish I had kept count of the number of times you have used this tactic when caught saying something in contravention of the facts. Instead of admitting error or defending yourself, you pretend as though reality were up to reader interpretation, flattering the readers instead of being intellectually honest.

Sure, that’s true. No individual meteorological event (a hurricane, a heat wave, a drought, etc.) can be seen as proof of any long-term trend. There will be rainy days in the middle of a drought, just as there were major hurricanes before Global Warming really got kicking.

Katrina is used as an example of what probably will happen more frequently as the earth heats up, but no serious scientist or politician says that Katrina is proof of Global Warming.

So what’s your point? That the existence of previous outliers means that demonstrable long-trends don’t occur?

Scottie 1321,
It has been repeated often enough in this blog but two examples in this thread alone is enough to refute…

“He is NOT a scientist(…)” -EdB

“Gore has no standing as a scientist.” - Howlin Willy

As far as your other attacks on Gore it is all a bunch of hot air if you ask me. Gore hasn’t lied nor has have you proven it. As a skeptic, I’ve had to parse “worst-case scenario” examples many times and this is no different. Marketing and cutting through the noise demands drama. But Gore’s claims are on very sound scientific and factual footing unlike the drama created by Dick Cheney when he latched on to the possibility of Saddam looking for nuclear material in Niger leading to a good chance of mushrooms clouds appearing over the US.

Good for Gore he is making money on this thing after 30 years. He is enjoying embracing the much nimbler private marketplace in order to move public policy. That he is profiting by embracing a transformative notion of capitalism should be a good thing for many of you conservatives.

That Gore is simultaneously such a loser and yet immensely successful huckster and coercer of scientists is laughable. Either Gore is incompetent or he is not.

Finally, Gore’s history of genuine concern about important public policy issues whether it be climate change, arms proliferation, encouraging new technologies, etc has not been some flim-flam man’s crusade to get elected or rich. He’s way to wonky for that. C’mon!

Your article on coastal developement doesn’t refute anything about climate change, only posits that increased developement (and population) will result in much more economic damage and loss of life no matter what hurrican activity does.

Any time you try to bring the federal government to help when the state and local is screwed up, It doesn’t matter how bad or good the federal response is. We could argue back and forth because all three had problems. The problem is the local govt lives there, they should have been on the ball. Then we could blame the feds all we want!

Yes, there are loonies on both sides of the spectrum, and some on the left thought Bush blew up the levies, etc. There are loonies on the right who think that Evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools.

But we’re not talking about loonies, are we? We’re talking about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that Global Warming is happening, and how that evidence is being interpreted and presented by serious scientists and by people like Al Gore.

I would argue that your overwhelming evidence is not being backed up by all scientist, they continue to debate it. That “global warming is a part of an up and down trend as history in climate shows. And that Al Gore over hyped the problem and if you base solutions on over hype you come to the wrong solutions.

I would argue that your overwhelming evidence is not being backed up by all scientist

We all know that’s what you would argue (a hundred comments or so has driven that home). And as long as the criteria is the unrealistic “all” scientists, then you’re right.

It’s too bad that some people aren’t content with accepting as solid the overwhelming consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field. It’d make life a lot easier by removing the need for “debates” like this one.

“Now this doesn’t prove global warming is not as bad as Al Gore says. It does drop Katrina as a proof that he is right:”

No it doesn’t. The study group just says economically you can’t point to climate factors for increased damage, not that Katrina’s intensity can’t be attributed to climate change.

There is economic rebuttal to even that argument including adjusting for building codes, the great depression, etc. Unfortunately, the authors of the study injected politics into the analysis with the last paragraph in the article:

“The Curry critique is flawed,” said Rade Musulin, an Australia-based actuary and co-author of the new study. “It seems that we have struck a nerve by challenging the notion that global warming is responsible for everything.”

That is why lawnboy that I would suggest you research the opinions of the scientist a little more. I thinks you will find a little different story! You call it, as Al Gore did, “overwhelming consensus” and that is just not truth. The number of scientist that came out denying that claim of Al Gore when he made it proves that point!

scottie-
Your news articles have the problem that scientific research and media research aren’t necessarily the same thing. numbers of articles don’t matter, because bullshit prints as easily as truth, and with the breadth and width of the mass media, you could find dozens of articles on any one point of view. It’s meager proof for the point.

What I keep on seeing coming from your side is a bunch of marketing. You dress up an Early 20th century point of view on climate and climate sensitiveity as the next big paradigm in climate science. You harp on how top scientists are defecting from the theory, presumably because those that weren’t top scientists wouldn’t sound so sexy as defectors on the matter.

You folks talk about it like its a religion, talk about political bias, because then you can claim the facts are tainted, and not have to discuss them, or give equal emphasis to ideas that have not had equal acceptance or scientific backing on the principle of getting equal time.

At the end of the day, though, there is substantive evidence supporting our point of view. Predicted outcomes are showing up. The science is better supported now than it was a decade ago. The picture is consistent.

Discuss the facts, and lets see if political rhetoric, polls, and marketing ploys are all you have to offer.

Read the article carefully! I did. All it says is the studies economic analysis shows no signal for climate factors. They are saying the economic damage does not tell whether there is a “climate signal”. I’ve excerpted the part about global warming for everyone to make it easy.

Hugh Willoughby, who directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s hurricane research from 1995 to 2002, said there’s no evidence of warming affecting hurricanes in the new economic analysis.

“We have heard a lot of crying about doom and gloom from global warming and hurricanes,” said Willoughby, now a distinguished professor at Florida International University. “But so far, at least, we’re finding that the thing that predicts how much damage will happen is what’s built on the beach. There’s just no climate signal that shows up in the economic data.”

That’s because the data are flawed, said Judith Curry, an Earth science researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology and one of the country’s leading proponents of the theory that global warming is causing hurricanes to become more intense.

One problem, she says, is the inclusion of economic data from before 1929, the year of the stock market crash. Prior to then, she said, properties were grossly overvalued, and an economic comparison to modern times is not feasible. If the analysis begins in 1929, several major storms, including the 1926 Miami storm and the two major Galveston hurricanes, are removed and the curve could indicate a slightly upward trend.

There’s another factor masking a real upward trend in economic damage, she said: the development of building codes, better construction techniques and improvements, such as the large dike now surrounding Lake Okeechobee and the Galveston Seawall, that mitigate storm surge damages.

“The big story should be that changing building codes and putting dikes up does work,” Curry said. “That’s the message, not that there’s no evidence of global warming in hurricane activity.”

The authors of the paper, however, say their work does consider building codes. But improvements in building codes, they say, have only been implemented recently, and their enforcement has been far from universal, meaning they have had little effect on their data.

“The Curry critique is flawed,” said Rade Musulin, an Australia-based actuary and co-author of the new study. “It seems that we have struck a nerve by challenging the notion that global warming is responsible for everything”

If you take out the two loaded comments “It seems that we have struck a nerve by challenging the notion that global warming is responsible for everything” and “We have heard a lot of crying about doom and gloom from global warming and hurricanes,” all Willoughby can say is greater building along the coast is a better predictor of economic damage. Again I say duh!

This study says nothing of the increasing physical strength and number of storms, only the amount of economic damage done.

You accused me of not reading your post but I did and I’ve read the article much more carefully than you. Quit the condescension or apologize or both. Show me how “It does drop Katrina as a proof that he is right.” and I will provide a mea culpa but so far you haven’t demonstrated anything.

Let me just state my position on Katrina that one hurricane is not “proof” in and of itself of anything. How could it? Taken together with other data, it could be a harbinger of the future intensity and destruction of hurricanes and that is what has helped wake many more people to the egg-head science of climate change.

Whether or not Katrina is the result of climate change is what I am talking about and the article and study authors it quotes does none of that. Measuring economic damage of hurricanes does not speak to the frequency and intensity of recent hurricane activity or Katrina in particular. If you throw in how much more developement there is in hurricane areas than there was back then, better building codes, and relative home values it gets even murkier.

All this study seems to say is you can’t tell economically if the trend in hurricane activity is changing for the worse. Even that point is rebutted by Curry. You can’t claim Katrina wasn’t caused in large part by climate change just as I can’t claim it is the proof of climate change. That is my point.

I sincerely hope we are not just two passing ships in the night here. Al Gore, myself, and others can continue to point to Katrina not as the proof of climate change but what climate change is capable of and to expect more of it.

Can you explain the drop in the hurricane intensity that occurred right before this last increase in intensity. Then the increase before that? Can you explain the high entensity of hurricane activity in the 50’s?

I would be willing to bet within the next ten years we will find another drop.

The other side? What on earth are you talking about? Take a look at that list. If you want to see if there’s a consensus, and you see that every single one of the relevant major scientific societies and organizations agree (based on the consensus within their groups), then what other side is there?

Just because you don’t want something to be true doesn’t mean that there’s not a consensus that it is true. By every possible measure, the consensus is that Global Warming exists largely due to human factors, and the consensus is nearly unanimous.

I would be willing to bet within the next ten years we will find another drop.
If we do will you cry uncle?

No. Because, as we said, local minima and maxima happen in nearly every complex system, no matter how strong the overall trend.
Posted by: LawnBoy at July 11, 2007 9:22 PM

The other side would be all the scientist who have come out since big Al’s movie who dispute his over exaggerated conclusions. Of course you wouldn’t know they are there. You do not give them validity because you are so sure you are correct. But that is ok. There are plenty of people who do.

I guess we will have to watch the overall trend won’t we. Again let history decide. I do have to thank you tho lawnboy. I have enjoyed our discussion better than responding to just rock throwing.

But if you are saying that there is not another side adequately stated by scientists, I would say you might look around a little.

(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore’s movie and book titled “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called “scientific consensus” touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:

An Australian academic has spoken out against the popular view that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. He believes that global warming and climate change are caused by cycles in the sun’s electro-magnetic radiation. He says scientists are taking a narrow view and politicians are making policy with the wrong information.

Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO is a former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University. He told Tom Harwood, ABC Western Queensland’s Morning Program producer that the world has been warming naturally due to increased magnetic radiation from the sun.

“One thousand years ago the Vikings were in Greenland, and they settled there and it was a warm period, known as the medieval warm period and Europe was prosperous,” he said. “And then from about 1300 on it got progressively colder and in the time of the 1600s it was terribly cold in Europe. Finland lost about one-third of their population and the Thames froze over regularly every year and people were able to travel from London up the river on sleighs - so it was a different climate,” explained Professor Endersbee.

He said since about 1700 the earth has been getting progressively warmer. “It’s shown in what we call the sunspot records. The sun is also emitting a great deal of electro-magnetic radiation and nowadays with NASA we can see that more plainly on the surface of the sun.”

The professor says that the incredible thing is that the electro-magnetic radiation from the sun varies up and down over an eleven year cycle. “And every eleven years there’s a change in the electrical polarity of the sun.”

Highly qualified climate scientists have long warned that warming estimates have at least one giant question mark: Water vapor and other tiny particles in the atmosphere. By failing to include reliable estimates of such “hazes” (not necessarily pollutants, as the article says), global warming models are likely to err wildly on the side of warming. It’s the unseen elephant in the living room.
The SCIENCE article therefore finally admits what scientific critics have been saying for years.

So look with open eyes lawnboy. Your overwhelming consensus is a lot of rhetoric. These are not whack jobs. For you to say there is no other side is helpful to us that have a more moderate view of the situation tho.

Ok One more of the other side that doesnt exist:

In the June 7 issue of Nature, scientists documented their reconstruction of Atlantic Ocean hurricane activity dating back 270 years. They found the 1970s and 1980s were periods of “anomalously low” hurricane activity compared with historical norms. The higher frequency and intensity of Atlantic Ocean hurricanes since then is not an unnatural surge of destruction due to global warming, but merely “a recovery to normal hurricane activity …”

You do not give them validity because you are so sure you are correct.

No, that’s not it. The question at hand is whether there is consensus. You are tackling a different question: unanimity. I’ll freely admit that there is not unanimity, but there very much is consensus.

That a tiny minority of the experts in the field disagree with the consensus does not invalidate the consensus agreed upon by the vast majority.

That some evidence exists that seems to contradict the overall theory does not mean that the theory is invalidated; it could mean either that the interpretation of the evidence is wrong, or that fine points of the theory need to be modified. This is not really a problem for a scientific theory, because modification based on new evidence is the basis of scientific progress.

Please get your terms right.

We’ve demonstrated the consensus through an examination of, well, the consensus. Throwing a tantrum of links won’t change that fact.

For you to say there is no other side is helpful to us that have a more moderate view of the situation tho.

You twist my words. I don’t say there’s no other side, as in no one disagrees. I say there’s no other side in terms of building lists of the relevant major scientific societies and organizations and seeing what there positions are.

Lawnboy, you know I read everything you choose to write here, but you do realize that’s a brick wall you are facing, don’t you? So, why are you slamming that fine head of yours against it? I’m just curious.

Anyway, we are talking at cross purposes here. Since #225898, I thought we were talking about what position was the scientific consensus. For that argument, the information that Cube presented in #225666 is completely relevant, and hasn’t been challenged. Your responses didn’t address the issue.

Looking at the list Cube presented, the American Meteorological Society has over 11,000 members, the American Geophysical Union has over 49,000 members, the American Astronomical Society has over 6500 members, the American Association for the Advancement of Science publishes Science, the premier scientific journal, the Geological Society of America has over 21,000 members, and the American Chemical Society has over 160,000 members. That’s organizations representing about 250,000 scientists that all have come to the same conclusion based on the scientific evidence. And that’s only the US-based organizations! I wouldn’t be surprised if the IPCC contributors took the worldwide count above a million.

Against that evidence of consensus, you bring up a few links to articles where a few experts on the subject are quoted as disagreeing. A quarter million against just a few? Really? That’s what I meant by “no other side;” no professional group, society, or organization that I know of in a relevant field disagrees with the current understanding of Global Warming. That’s practically the definition of consensus.

So, what does that mean about the links you provide? Am I just ignoring them because I don’t like them? No. I’m trying to point out that your links do not address the question of whether a consensus exists. Instead, they challenge the consensus. The links don’t say that the consensus isn’t the reality of Global Warming; they say the consensus of Global Warming is wrong. That’s a fundamentally different question.

And on some level, it’s the real question we should be debating. Whether Global Warming is true or not is more important than whether it is actually the current consensus. However, that’s what I was arguing, and your tantrum in reply didn’t challenge our evidence one bit.

So some scientists disagree with the consensus. Does that mean that they are wrong? Not at all - if further evidence supports their view, then their view will be able to stand on its own and perhaps someday supplant the current consensus. However, their disagreement with the consensus does not inherently mean that they are correct, and it does not mean that a consensus does not exist.

I say that is what you see because you are blinded by living in the far left. But thats just my opinion.

Yes, it is your opinion. And I dare say that it’s an opinion that has not been and will not be validated with factual evidence.

I just burned 20 minutes trying to find Eric Steig’s comments about the IPCC working group draft. If you can give a clearer citation, I would appreciate it.

However, I was able to find his name listed in the Reviewer’s list and used the affiliation information there to confirm it is the same Eric Steig who contributes to RealClimate.

His posts make it quite clear he subscribes to the mainstream view of anthropogenic climate change. You might find what he has to say about Gore’s movie interesting:

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn’t highlight the connection any more than is appropriate.

I have no idea what his criticisms were in the draft IPCC report, but obviously they did not effect his overall views about climate change.

scottie, thanks for pointing Dr. Steig out. He’s a good writer and deals with arcane material very well. If I have time tomorrow, I’ll check out your other (*cough*) skeptics of anthropogenic climate change.

Thanks again for the compliments. I’m not sure why I’m continuing to try as this thread passes 250 comments (is that a record?). There seems to be some head banging, but it’s not as bad as some of the debates I’ve had in the past on Evolution and with certain people (I imagine you can guess some of the people I’m thinking of).

I’m still interested in the debate for now. I don’t know how much longer that will last.

Also, scottie, there’s a problem with the tantrum of links you provided; many of them are just not right. For example, the unsourced claim about Global Warming being due to sunspots. Well, that addressed in a page that JJ linked to long ago:

Those societies and social groups are a lot like labor unions. Just because that is the stated opinion piece of the society, it does not mean that group of scientist are all on the same page. Not all nurses agree with the political statements of the nurses union. Not all teamsters agree with the political position of the union.

You are trying to paint a picture where they are all in agreement. There is not overwhelming consensus in any of those groups as there is not overwhelming consensus in the scientific community as a whole.

But look at what is in the text of CUBES post #225666 from these groups and societies. EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING IS IN the opinions of these groups stated right in the same POST THAT YOU KEEP SAYING IS OVERWHELMING!

I Have CAPITALIZED A FEW THINGS!

American Meteorological Society

averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 YEARS (And we have had automobiles since how long?)

American Chemical Society

There is now GENERAL agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real…(NO DOUBT) CURRENT DEBATE FOCUSES ON THE EXTENT to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses

Geological Society of America

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; (AGAIN NO DOUBT)the climate changes are DUE IN PART to human activities

ONE Says warming constant over 200 years.

One tells you that they agree on the warming but are still debating the amount humans are contributing.

One says that the change is due IN PART

Now who is banging his head? THAT IS NOT OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS.

Even this one is not a strong statement:

U.S. National Research Council, 2001

The changes observed over the last several decades are LIKELY mostly due to human activities

LIKELY

IF there was 100% consensus in that group then the language would have been DEFINITELY or even maybe MOST LIKELY

So to use post #225666 to prove any overwhelming consensus can be easily refuted by its own text.

Let’s see, do we have anything more than near-unanimous statements from the world of science, the ability to regularly rebut your claims by showing that they are outdated (sunspots), completely misrepresentive (Dr. Steig), or otherwise just wrong, and the overwhelming scientific evidence?

No, I guess not. When faced with a brick wall that will uncritically accept any news clip it likes and will out-of-hand dismiss mountains of scientific data and conclusions it doesn’t like, it’s hard to know what more to give.

You’ve said a few times that we should wait and see and find out who’s right. How about we wait until there’s been a global raise in temperature that corresponds extremely well with the increase in human-created CO2, until the sea level rises by 10-20 cm, until snow and ice cover at both poles and at all ice packs has decreased, until a period of time occurs in which over 900 peer-reviewed articles on the climate are written (and none find evidence to disagree with human-caused global climate change), and until every relevant scientific body takes a look at the evidence and makes the same conclusion?

Would that be a good point at which to say that enough evidence is in? Would that be conclusive enough? Or is there some other impossible goal we need to achieve first?

Give me some response on post #225666.you said earlier that there had been no response. I believe i gave a pretty thourough response and now you dont go back to it!

“As fat as “myth debunking site” there are a million of those out there. If you will notice the one proposed is not a scientific journal. It is a news sit. It claims tha. It is not first hand info.

But I want to get back to Cubes post. Instead of going there you go to my statement of lets see. but your main premise is wrong.If you are right then science will prove it and we will fix it! not leave it alone. If I am right, over the next few years, we will see where the miss understandings were. We generally do. Just like with “Global cooling.”

But I would really rather go back and discuss Cubes post some more.

You say:
“For that argument, the information that Cube presented in #225666 is completely relevant, and hasn’t been challenged. Your responses didn’t address the issue.”

Ive addressed it and now you just ignore it.

Again I say you have yet to Prove overwhelming evidence. You can say:

“you bring up a few links to articles where a few experts on the subject are quoted as disagreeing”

All you want. If you want i can start to post everyone Out there and We will be discussing this next decade.

But I would prefer to stay on the subject you started and have you respond to what I said in post #225980

Lawnboy, you have been trolled. I recognized that other poster’s technique from years ago, and yes the length of the thread is the point. He is a Bob Jones U type and will continue indefinitely as long as anyone responds to him.

There need to some stiffer rules applied to this forum if they expect serious people to post. Double posting should not be allowed. There should be a limitation on the length of the posts. We recently had a perfectly good discussion on immigration that was wrecked by someone who posted more than 30 pages from some other site. Who really wants to scroll past all the nonsense.

from televisionwithpity, a well moderated forum:

In a nutshell, a troll is a shit disturber.
A troll may:
Post offensive messages only to get you angry.
Post the same thing over and over again to take up space and ruin the flow of the forums
Start hurling insults left and right in hopes of starting a flame war.

Your analysis is basically this:
“The societies use different words to say the same thing. If they actually agreed, they’d say the exact same thing.”

Nope. They all say pretty much the same thing in slightly different words, and they use words like “most likely” and “in part” because they are honest.

Your comment about the American Meteorological Society is meaningless - while cars aren’t 200 years old, the industrial revolution is over 200 years old, and that’s when we started burning fossil fuels. Why create the strawman that Global Warming is only about cars? Oh yeah, because you can’t address the actual arguments.

You highlight the word “GENERAL” in the ACS’s statement as though that somehow says there isn’t consensus, when the phrase “general agreement among scientific experts” is a term that means consensus. I’m not going to give you credit for highlighting a word to imply it means the opposite of what it means in context.

You didn’t answer my question (which I do think is on topic). If the current state of evidence, studies, and consensus isn’t enough for you, what on earth would be?

Again I say you have yet to Prove overwhelming evidence.

You say this, but you have access to all the information in the IPCC report and the whole web. If you deny the accumulated knowledge of the world’s scientists on the back of discredited news articles, what really do you expect me to provide?

Your analysis is basically this:
“The societies use different words to say the same thing. If they actually agreed, they’d say the exact same thing.”

That is not my analysis at all.

You say:

Your comment about the American Meteorological Society is meaningless - while cars aren’t 200 years old, the industrial revolution is over 200 years old, and that’s when we started burning fossil fuels.

So the moment we started burning fossil fuels we started raising the worlds temp the same day? That makes no sense at all. If that were the case we would now be far past catastrophe.

You say:
“You highlight the word “GENERAL” in the ACS’s statement as though that somehow says there isn’t consensus, “

I do that to go along with what I highlight next which you did not touch:

CURRENT DEBATE FOCUSES ON THE EXTENT to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses.

You say Cubes post proves something. What about the rest of my analysis of his post.

From your post the only thing you touched was the word General which Lawnboy, still does not imply “overwhelming”

This isn’t silly. It is debate! It only becomes silly when one does not respond to the flow of conversation.

Respond to this:

There is now GENERAL agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real(NO DOUBT) CURRENT DEBATE FOCUSES ON THE EXTENT to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses..

They say they are still debating exactly what we are debating! That is not overwhelming consensus!

Temperatures have been increasing over 200 years. So the moment we started putting co2 in the air, we immediately started Global Warming?

It only becomes silly when one does not respond to the flow of conversation.

Then I guess your refusal to answer my questions has made it silly.

You’re wrong, though; that’s not the only way a conversation can become silly. It’s also silly when one side continually shows a lack of the basic understanding of the scientific principles involved while trying to engage in a debate about science. Or when one side confused consensus with unanimity.

Lawnboy, on Jared Diamond, you should see the National Geographic video of Guns, Germs, and Steel. Jared Diamond eventually gets disgusted with himself and his own theories when confronted with their actual effects on real human beings in Africa.

The sentence assumes that climate change is anthropogenic and states there is some disagreement over how much natural patterns have been influenced. Some scientists, for instance, think the IPCC understated the degree of certainty; they claim the confidence level, which was set at 90 percent, should have been higher.

scottie, many of your statements demonstrate that you don’t understand the basic theory. The counter evidence you cite is generally from news articles, which, when read carefully, often don’t support your point. And you’re quibbling about what consensus means.

The large majority of experts acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. Some quibble over various points but don’t disagree with the general consensus. A few reject the theory outright.

scottie-
Those aren’t labor unions, they’re professional organizations. And you’re quibbling over small differences in phrasing.

Do us all a favor: Read through all your sources, and see how many different explanations you have there. Then, go back, see what the responses to the objectionsare, and what the data shows. You’ll find that scientists have not exactly neglected those possibilities. You’ll find that there is substantial evidence supporting Global Warming, while other theories have evidence ruling them out as the main causes.

But of course, you go for news sources, for surveys. You, like many global warming contrarians take the word of anybody who calls themselves a scientist, and uncritically accept whatever explanations they offer. This you do while you criticize others for their scientific weaknesses. Science isn’t about free-floating doubt, it’s about not coming to conclusions that you can’t or won’t put to the test. There are people who accept global warming unskeptically, but the scientists whose credibility you borrow one minute and try to discredit the next most decidedly are not among them. This has been one of the most tested and observed phenomena of modern times. You act like they just fell off the Watermelon truck.

Meanwhile, you folks rigidly hold to your own theories, but don’t even have the benefit of a solid scientific backing theory or datawise, to support your dissent.

Couldn’t you guys just give him the link to the report that shows the “consensus” of scientists who actually agree that global warming is entirely man made and that a dramatic lifestyle change on our part will definetly stop it?

Couldn’t you guys just give him the link to the report that shows the “consensus” of scientists who actually agree that global warming is entirely man made and that a dramatic lifestyle change on our part will definetly stop it?

kctim,

Read the Wiki link I just posted. In addition, we have sourced the large number of scientific organizations that acknowledge anthropogenic climate change (only one major U.S. scientific organization disputes the consensus view). Regardless, a simple link to the IPCC report does what you ask.

However, your question contains some erroneous assumptions. One, Man-caused carbon emissions are just one factor — a dominant factor, but just one. The Earth does go through its own warming and cooling cycles; no one denies that, despite what you hear here. The current warming, however, cannot be entirely explained by that. Two, the issue isn’t whether we can eliminate global warming. That seems out of reach. But we can perhaps prevent some of the worst consequences. Three, mitigation steps do not require dramatic lifestyle changes, at least not very disruptive ones. The single best step we can take now is to install the carbon tax Jack proposes. Coupled with rebates to taxpayers of the revenues, the economic hit would be minimal. The goal is to change behavior, not to disrupt the economy. Other steps are also required. Raising CAFE standards (which we’ve experienced with minimal impact before), investing in R&D, providing subsidies for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, continuing to invest in clean coal technology (which will be increasingly important if electric cars really take off), etc. I think we should get away from using massive vehicles when much smaller and efficient vehicles are just fine for the city. Many economists see a great deal of economic activity arising from these steps. And at the same time, these steps serve to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thus make good national security sense.

Gerrold
I wasn’t trying to make assumptions. I was just going by what I am told in the media and from what I believe would give Scottie more to read up on.

If the IPCC report is the leading study by leading scientists, says man-cause carbon emissions are THE dominant factor for global warming and that drastically changing our lifestyle (I disagree that it would be easy or even work) will prevent it, then those oppossed to this theory need to have a credible study of their own and provide proof it is wrong.

According to the media and what we are told, almost every scientist agrees, without question, that man is the “dominate factor” or cause of global warming. If this is the case, then your side is in the lead. Kudos.

The CAFE standards issue should get a lot more attention than Trent Lott showing pictures of what he called a puple people eater. The newer standards being proposed would only increase mileage on most passenger vehicles to the mileage of a Cooper Mini. These are 2 organizations that have done a lot of research in this area:

http://www.rmi.org/Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott announced plans to double the fleet’s fuel efficiency by 2015. To help reach this goal, the company has outfitted its trucks with auxiliary power units so that driver doesn’t have to keep the engine idling just to run the air conditioner…

and

http://www.sierraclub.org/A grassroots coalition of environmental, religious, and activist groups has launched a campaign to expose the Fox network’s skewed and inaccurate coverage of global warming. The campaign, led by the Sierra Club, Brave New Films, and MoveOn.org Civic Action, includes a YouTube video called Fox Attacks: The Environment that has been viewed more than 200,000 times.

Here is what I am not in agreement- That there is overwhelming consensus by scientist that man is a dominate factor. (I happen to believe not. Maybe I am wrong. That is not my argument! )KCTIM’s statement in post #226044 however makes a statement that many of you believe!:

“Couldn’t you guys just give him the link to the report that shows the “consensus” of scientists who actually agree that global warming is entirely man made and that a dramatic lifestyle change on our part will definatly stop it?”

That far left position that Al Gore makes in his movies and interviews is just not accurate!

Those on the far left have a position that “GLOBAL WARMING” is almost entirely man made, is going to have catastrophic consequences, and if we do not make major lifestyle changes, we are going to destroy ourselves. That is even fine! Have that position! You Might be right! But to make the statement as Al Gore did that the overwhelming majority of scientist back that up is so far from the truth that it hurts.

Now those of you on the far left can believe that all you want, throw rocks instead of substance when you don’t have an answer, and dismiss all the scientist who do not have that extreme view all you want.

Cubes post does not prove that belief. Hurricane Katrina does not prove that extreme belief.

Here is why it is so important! You can not solve any problem if you way overstate the problem first! Al Gore overstated it and I am thankful. We can and have debated this in this country for 9 months now. As hard as the far left has tried to espouse that position, the polls show, people do not believe it! The scientific community does not have an “overwhelming consensus” on that far left position. Now there is “overwhelming consensus” that we are warming! Cubes post shows that. It also shows that the extent of human causes of “global warming” is still in debate. I know those of you on the far left believe that it is totally or almost totally man made. Again I will say, maybe you are right! But to state that the scientific community “overwhelmingly” backs you up is preposterous. Simple research shows that. The chain of post’s in this blog shows that.

But you guys on the far left just keep spouting it. I am actually thankful for it. It will keep the debate going until we come to a reasonable solution to an “accurately defined” problem.

I know your position! I know that you think you are right. That is your right as an American. I have not and will never try to convince you. You guys get all twitter pated when I say “we have given both sides of the issue, let the readers decide!”

We have now. Let the readers decide. These same arguments have been made around the water cooler for months now since “an Inconvenient truth”.

I wouldn’t even be one of those people. I am not yet decided that we have “no effect at all”. But as long as the far left is in charge of the debate, and keeps taking the extreme, people will understand that you guys are an extreme and that that is reason enough to doubt.

Keep a closed mind! As long as you do the far left will continue to be a thorn in the side of the Democratic party. It is the same with the war. As long as Cindy Shehan takes the extreme view she does, and runs against Nancy Pelosi. They will both lose. The great Bay Area will end up electing a Republican. Why, because you guys assume that all the people who were for this war who are now against it are now a part of your “Anti War Crowd” They are not! But those of you on the fringe believe that with all of your heart!

We can go on if you want. Adrienne doesn’t want to She thinks this debate is silly. Maybe it is to her. I happen to believe it is an important debate. But I also happen to believe that We are debating this for the reader. Many read blogs, few participate. The readers can decide! Maybe they will decide I am wrong. Right now tho, in the world of public opinion, The far left is definately losing. I hope for accuracy to win, not the exaggerated.

But of course the majority of the posters in this Particular set of posts are “far left”. So we cannot come to any close consensus. My two bestest lesbians in the whole wide world are far left. I love them more than anything. So Thats OK.

Just for you! From The EPA main page on global warming. First paragraph:

Global warming is the sustained increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. Human activity contributes to this change through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Over time, this increase may be sufficient to cause climatic change, including raising sea levels, altering precipitation patterns and changing water supplies and crop yields. Global warming could also affect human health, harm wildlife and damage fragile ecosystems.

Boy that sounds so much like :

“Global warming is entirely man made and that a dramatic lifestyle change on our part will definatly stop it”

I’ll stick closer with the EPA and the thought that we are yet to have a definitive answer!

scottie-
We show you one professional science organization after another giving credence to Global Warming. And then you ask where the consensus is. Sort of like the guy who asks where the bus to Pittsburgh is, as it zooms by and people point at it.

It’s there, you just want to quibble with the wording on the side of the bus. Science is a business of making modest claims with great precision, accuracy, and reliability. They will use words that hedge, talk about likelihoods, but translated to common language, it comes out like this: Global Warming is definitely a problem, and those who gamble on it not being so, or on it not being our doing, are making a poor bet.

You’re making a lot of claims on exaggerated grounds. The claim that the organizations are more fractious rather than united as we say they are is one. Another is the position that many of your opponents are on the far left (convenient isn’t it? That means nobody’s a moderate simply arguing the facts.) That the extent of our involvement is up for debate is true, but not the overwhelming degree of our involvement; that has been verified by the isotopic measurements of the new CO2 in our atmosphere.

Also exaggerated in the notion that we consider it totally or near totally man-made. In reality, it’s more like an avalanche; what we’re doing is perturbing the system out of its former mode of stability. Then, given enough of a push, the system can take on a life of its own in things. The real question, though, is whether our contribution is acting as the stick being poked into the bee-hive. The answer is pretty much yes. We may not cause all the bee’s actions, but we’re certainly putting things in motion.

As for that poll? It was an unscientific survey on a UK AOL website on global warming, open to anybody who cared to show up. As this guy says most people believe that Humans are at least a factor, if not the factor in why the Earth is heating up. If you think it’s just liberal media clap-trap, please feel free to find out what FOXNews believes on the matter.

But even if your poll wasn’t full of it, the facts would remain the same. Nature doesn’t read the WSJ Op-Ed section. It doesn’t give a crap about polls, whethere they’re properly conducted or not. If you want to know why most scientists in the field subscribe to AGW theory, you need to know the science, and you need to know what explanations are incompatible with one another.

The business with the Pocket Issue poll highlights some of the problems with the way the contrarians approach the science.

I’d think you’d be suspicious just on the grounds that if something’s too good to be true, it usually is. Seventy Percent agreement with your side, after what the other polls have said? I just entered the keywords in the search box, and found the links above with relative ease. That you are so eager to believe that you have that kind of support that you don’t stop to examine the basis of your premise demonstrates the haste and carelessness with which the Right gloms onto supporting evidence. Even if you just looked in on that particular survey’s site, you’d see countervailing evidence to much of your theories.

This is why I don’t treat the contrarian’s arguments with much respect. This is the kind of thing I end up finding out with just a few minutes of basic research.

As for definitive answers, the thing about atmospheric science is that if you’re looking for absolute precision and accuracy in predictions, you’ll never get it. The system is too sensitive to small disturbances. This is the field from which the Butterfly Effect hails. However, the system is not completely disordered, just not arbitrarily predictable.

It is significant, that as we have gained greater ability to model climate in the computer, the outcome of global warming has become more firmly supported by both observation and simulation.

The thing about waiting for absolute certainty with something as nonlinear as climate change, is that by the time you have absolute certainty about an event, it’s already happening. To wait until Global Warming is a certainty to do something about it is to wait too long.

Global warming is the sustained increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. Human activity contributes to this change through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Over time, this increase may be sufficient to cause climatic change, including raising sea levels, altering precipitation patterns and changing water supplies and crop yields. Global warming could also affect human health, harm wildlife and damage fragile ecosystems.

“Global warming is entirely man made and that a dramatic lifestyle change on our part will definatly stop it”

A agree with statement #1. I also believe that many scientist are still trying to find answers and do not have but a partial picture.

I believe that the most will pick statement # 1.

The far left continues to promote statement # 2

Al gore continues to promote statement #2

There is no evidence that the “overwhelming consensus” of scientist agree with statement #2

Thank you for pointing that out. You are right and I probably should have said that even if it is skewed we are probably looking at 50/50 Even I said that I wouldn’t even be one of those people. I have never said that human impact is not effecting global warming all! But it does not change the fact that the far left has failed to convince the American public that it is mostly human causes either. That even if the numbers are skewed some the poll shows that.

You are a very reasonable blogger Steven. I have enjoyed our debates in the past. You don’t throw rocks and you debate the issues. I love the environment. I live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas. I believe everyone should be responsible for their own trash. I believe if we can within our means we should try to drive a car that makes a smaller footprint on the environment. I also Instead of telling people that they are bad because they enjoy their HUMMER, we need to take that energy and fight for the lungs of the people who live in the Los Angeles Basin. (I severely believe that Al Gore and anyone in that class that travels the world, are the least qualified to tell us that. I also believe they have the right to do it and it would be in good character with the means they have to plant some trees!) I believe we should do as much as we can to rid ourselves of our dependency on oil. I also that demonizing the oil companies, (And I know that they aren’t perfect!) is not the solution to the problem.

I also believe that by the very nature of technology that we have continued since the first days of the Industrial Revolution to find ways to lessen the impact on the environment. I also believe we need to be watchful. We need to be careful.

But I also know that the far left very often has had bad solutions to real problems. One example of this is the intensity of our forest fires. They have gained in intensity because we have taken the far left approach to managing our forests.

Part of the reason for this is that they over hype the problem. They overstate the facts. From passion? Yes. I know that. But still wrong!

It may be a waste of time but that does not change the two arguments :

Consensus that :

Global warming is the sustained increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. Human activity contributes to this change through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Over time, this increase may be sufficient to cause climatic change, including raising sea levels, altering precipitation patterns and changing water supplies and crop yields. Global warming could also affect human health, harm wildlife and damage fragile ecosystems.

Even I believe that statement and I am skeptical.

Or “Overwhelming consensus” that :

“Global warming is [almost] entirely man made and that a dramatic lifestyle change on our part will definatly stop it”

Scottie, You, Goomba and a few others help to explain why the free market is unable to deal with something on the level of global warming/climate change. Those on the far right like yourself do not want government intervention yet you have just proven throughout this thread why the free market can only be a bit player on this stage. True innovation and change in this case seems to take a push only the government can give, partially due to your compadres on the far right that cannot see how through your reluctance to accept the possibility of global warming is keeping the free market from working and is instead pushing the country to government intervention to help solve the problem. Yet you will be the first to scream and shout when it happens. In stead of this “debating” as you call it just stop and ask yourself what if…after all you wouldnt sit in your car in the garage with the engine runnung would you? Your logic or lack of in this case is like the one legged man in the ass kicking contest, your wanting to kick but you just aint got a leg to stand on.

Hate to tell you this but I am Far from Far Right. I have been known to argue very ferociously with friends on the far right. The far left however would general perceive all Republicans and even some conservative Democrats as far right. I have faced that also.

AND…

“Even I believe that statement and I am skeptical.”

That quote from the post right before yours proves your analysis of how I feel about global warming is not true!

And

“after all you wouldn’t sit in your car in the garage with the engine running would you?”

That statement is covered in my post to Stephen when I discuss the Lung Problem in the LA Basin.

I said:

I also, instead of telling people that they are bad because they enjoy their HUMMER,believe we need to take that energy and fight for the lungs of the people who live in the Los Angeles Basin.

Lastly

“Your logic or lack of in this case is like the one legged man in the ass kicking contest, your wanting to kick but you just ain’t got a leg to stand on.”

The far left solves the problem of that ugly stinky stuff that comes when we burn things by a sky is falling, thw world is going to implode rational. I keep saying that I don’t believe that is the best way to arrive at a good solution. You see I bought my pizza place with money I made consulting businesses on the system they used. I would observe, find problems, and give some solutions. I am going to do that here!

So back to co2, smog, gunk, etc. Some would say it will destroy the world. I say after quick analysis of the system that it has already destroyed the “air quality” in LA, London, Denver, and some other major metropolitan areas. These places stink, your eyes hurt, health care costs must skyrocket, I don’t know. But there is probably a list a mile long of economic, social, environmental, and whatever else problems. As I look at the system I see that as the largest problem. I would put the “overwhelming” majority of my effort into fixing this.

Now I have to come up with some solutions. Our solutions are really a lot alike. First I would encourage everyone to modify their driving as to fix one of the major causes. I would make it so inexpensive to drive a hybrid that one couldn’t pass up the deal. Tax credit? Subsidies? I don’t know how to pay for it but I am sure it could be done if the far left were on board.

If we were debating the same page instead of the extreme, we could also create what I call Socialized Transportation. You guys like to socialize things, you never talk about transportation. I don’t have a problem with it.

Now socializing health care is a different story but we are solving some of that because we are getting rid of the smog. Lower health cost in LA also transfers to the rest of the country right?

Be creative but just think of a world where all that energy they are using fighting man made global warming aren’t doing that, They are focused on the Metropolitan Smog and Gunk Cause. No need to exaggerate, hype, just show some pictures or give a tour. No debate. 100% consensus.

Now we come to what I understand to be the second problem, businesses that pollute.

Now your economy relies on a good decision so tread cautiously. Do not ignore the problem however.

I would give incentives to get some to move where the pollutants don’t effect the people so much.(Kansas?) We might have to make a trade off. We still are impacting the environment but that impacted environment does not have quite the effect on the humans. Now during that transfer those would be wise to update to higher technologies the to lower pollutants. Some governmental regulation I’m sure. But not from a “Corporate = Evil” attitude.

I’m sure if creative heads got together without the benefits of a “sky is falling attitude” That there are a few solutions that work. Remember it is the new mantra of the far left to “fix the Gunk”. This can work!

Now, is it my imaginations that everything in our popular culture starts in the big city and spreads naturally to the small town? Hair styles, the years color, the newest “bottled water”?

These places stink, your eyes hurt, health care costs must skyrocket, I don’t know. But there is probably a list a mile long of economic, social, environmental, and whatever else problems that stem from the problem of this gunk. As I look at the system I see air quality as the largest problem. I would put the “overwhelming” majority of my effort into fixing this.

scottie-
The issue with that survey is that it’s not built to be a representative sample of the population. Several key problems included:
1) The fact that folks could seek it out themselves, meaning readers could skew results if they organized appropriately, or just by being an unrepresentative portion of the population.

2) The fact that it was a British AOL site, and therefore involved a different audience than ours

3) The fact that it’s not a random survey, with people contacted across the population.

All in all, it makes it very difficult to derive a conclusion about the general American population from the numbers on the site.

The real survey results done of this country indicate a clear majority of Americans believe global Warming is at least partly, if not entirely caused by humans.

On the subject of forest fires, I don’t think its fair to say that this was a uniquely leftish, much less far left approach. It was an approach based on a poor understanding of both forest ecology, and the nature of events that work on critical thresholds.

Those kinds of critical thresholds can be important, and form part of the dilemma of dealing with Global Warming based on certainty.

Think about it like this: There’s already global warming in the queue, effects of the CO2 we’ve pumped out that the Oceans have absorbed, and effects from current warming not fully manifested. Whether we succeed in stabilizing our emissions and head off that future warming or not, that warming will happen regardless.

The trouble with the forests is that at a certain point, the density of trees and the amount of dry brush and dried out material ensures that one small fire can quickly become a much greater, much more destructive fire, much more than if prescribed or natural burns were allowed to take that stuff out.

With our atmosphere, the problem is properly described in terms of what scientists call metastability. Scientists believe there are certain points after which the secondary effects of our warming influence become more important than our primary effects. Put another way, at some point, we could stop CO2 emissions altogether, and the consequences of our earlier warming would be great enough to keep the trend going. Obviously, we want to get in front of that, to reduce our emissions while our emissions, and not the environmental feedbacks, are dominating the change.

Air quality is a concern, but part of that is that many of the cities you cite exist in places where convection is fairly poor, where Warm air sits on top of cold, what’s called a temperature inversion. Not much you can do there, but clean up your emissions. Otherwise, the stagnation of the cold air lets it keep you company.

As far as corporations go, the law requires that they make money for their investors, and that they refrain from doing things they know will reduce profit. Only if something can be rationalized as beneficial to the bottom line, or comes as a legal obligation, can they submit to that. Corporations aren’t evil, but because of the focus on profit, good people can sometimes find themselves obligated or pushed to do the wrong things in the service of a narrow agenda.

The problem is that climate change deniers are NOT denying it because of any actual evidence or because they’ve done research. Rather it’s purely based on ideology. It’s the same reason why the hardcore Bush supporters (of course often the same) won’t ever stop saying anyone who questions Iraq is a traitor who “hates the troops.” Its part of right-wing culture to demonize and hate “the left” including environmentalists, anti-war activists, and whoever else fox “news” says is part of it. Basically people like Rush tell people not to listen to any of it because it’s all just “libhrul talk.” And it’s why deniers rarely give any concrete envidence and keep changing their views. For example, saying how warming itself is impossible, then saying it’s a natural cycle, then that it’s the sun causing it. As a last resort they’ll say how we must not worry about it because doing anything about it would supposedly ruin the economy (funny, I thought it was bad to sound like a “chicken little” who uses alarmism), or in some cases even that it’s a good thing.
Unless they’re willing to offer actual points and use facts, it’s probably best to ignore it when deniers act like rabid trolls, since their goal is not to find the truth or engage in honest debate but rather to shout it down.

It’s telling that you think people against the war are the “far left” instead of the majority of ordinary Americans. You keep saying things like you believe that there is no consensus, I suppose this is the “truthiness” that people like Colbert humoressly parody, because instead of just saying you think so, you could try finding it out.

The fact is that every major scientific organization (real ones, the competitive enterprise institute and fake astroturf groups don’t count) agree with the global warming consensus. There have been zero, let me repeat, ZERO peer-reviewed research findings that disprove or cast significant doubt on the theory of CO2-induced climate change. This is a fact, if it’s wrong however please post a link, or provide some explicit evidence it’s wrong, just resorting saying you don’t care what the “far left” says you’re not going to believe it doesn’t cut it. There is no secret conspiracy, Al Gore is not an evil genius out to take over the world, science is not a communist plot, in other words for the deniers enough of the tinfoil hat-type rhetoric already.

Posted by: mark at July 22, 2007 4:57 PM

Post a comment

If you're seeing this message, you won't be able to post a comment. I'm sorry, but to combat comment spam, we've had to resort to "hiding" the url to the comment script using javascript.